Future of Nuclear Powers (Tamil)

1
#upad; cjakhdNghJ fu;j;ju; Nyhj;J FLk;gj;ij Nrhthu; kiyapy; milf;fyk;

nfhLj;jgpd; >ghtk; nra; j efuq; fshd NrhNjhikAk; nfhk;khuhitAk; mopf;f
Muk; gpj; jhu; . thdj; jpypUe; J neUg; igAk; > fe;jfj;ijAk; efupd; kPJ tP rp mjd; KO
rkntspiaAk;> [dq;fisAk;> nrbfisak; mopj;jhu;. Mjpahfkk; 19:10:29

Gtp ntg;gkhFjy;> Rw;Wr;#oy; ghJfhg;G> cyfkakhf;fypdhy; tWik
Ntiyapd;ik> Ntshz; ; neUf;fb kw;Wk; kpd;kakhf;fypy; fup> mZkpd; cw;gj;jp
Kiwfspdhy; Mgj;J> fdpk tsq; fis tiuKiwapd; wp #iuahLjy;
Mfpaitfis (21k; E}w; whz; by; ) vjpu; j; J kf;fs; NghuhLtJ cyfshtpa
epfo; Tfshf cs; sJ. ,jpy; mZkpd; cw;gj;jp Kiw Fwpj;J xU njspthd
ghu;itia Vw;gLj;JtJ kpfTk; rpukkhd xd;whFk;.

mZtpd; tuyhW :
nghUl;fs; mZf;fshy; Mdit vd; w fUj; jpid Guhjd fpNuf; f
jj; JtQhdpfs; jhd; Kjd; Kjypy; Vw; gLj;jpdu;. mZtpd; ufrpaj;ij gy
Nrhjidfspd; %yk; jpwTNfhyhf;fpl 18, 19 Mk; E}w;whz;L tpQ;Qhdpfs; Kad; wdu;.
1904k; Mz;L mZit gpsg;gjpd;%yk; mghu rf;jpia ngwKbAk; vd;whu;
&ju; Nghu; L. mZit gpsg; gjw; fhd E = mc2 vd;w #j;jpuj;ij My;gu;l; [d;];bd;
fz; lwpe; jhu; . 1938y; tpQ;Qhdpfs; nya;];nkd;lu;> Xl;Nlh mZit gpse;J rhjid
Gupe;jdu; .
1942y; rpfhNfh gy;fiy tshfj; jpy; 6 ld; ANudpak;> 34 ld; ANudpak;
Mf;i]Lld; 400ld; fpuhigL nrq; fy; fw;fSf;fpilNa ntbf; fg; gl; lJ. mjpy;
foptha; fpilj; j GSNlhdpaj;jpy; (kd;`hl;ld; Project); nra;j mZFz;L 2 k;
cyfg;Nghupy; `pNuh\pkh ehfrhfpia mopj;jJ. Mopit njhlu;e;J mZtpd;
msg;gupa rf;jpia kpd;rhukhf;fpa Kjy; ehLk; mnkupf;fhNt.fypNghu;dpahtpy;
rhe; jh r]; dh Kjy; mZkpd; epiyak; 12.07.1957y; ehl;L kf;fSf;F
mu; g; gzpf; fg; gl; lJ. 25Mz;L Nritf;Fg;gpd; 1982y; KOikahf %lg;gl;lJ.
mZciy tiffs; :
nfhjpePu; mZciy(BWR)> eP u; mOj; j mZciy(PWR)> thA Fsp&l; ly;
mZciy vd %d;W njhopy;El;gq;fis nfhz;l mZciyfNs jw;NghJ
,af;fj;jpy; cs;sd. Kjy;> ,uz; L> %d;whk; jiyKiw vd ,itfs; njhopy; El; g
tsu; r; rpAk; mile; Js; sd. ehd; fhk; jiyKiwf;fhd Ma;Tk; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ.
jw;NghJ cyfpy; 420 mZciyfs; 30 ehLfspy; 354988 nkfhthl; kpd;cw;gj;jp
nra; JtUfpd; wd. cyf kpd; cw; gj; jpapy; ,J 14% MFk;. Rdhkp> epyeLf;fk;
,itfis rkhspf; Fk; rf; jp tha; e; j> upaf;lu; Nfhu; cUfhky; 3 ehl;fs; tiu
fhj;jpLk; (Passive Cooling System) njhoy;El;gj;Jld; 3+ jiyKiwia 2007 Kjy;
gpuhd;];> mnkupf;fh> [g;ghd;> u\;ah mZkpd; jahupg; G epWtdq; fs; (mupth>
AP1000, kpl;Rgp\p>VVER 1200) gupNrhjidf; F cl; gLj;jpAs; sd.
1
14/ 01/ 2012
2

ANudpak; :
G+kpapd; KfLfspYk; fly; ePupYk; kl;LNk ANudpak; fpilf;fpwJ. mnkupf;fhtpd;
Nkw; F khepyq; fs; > fdlh> M]; jpNuypah> f[fp]; jhd; Mfpa ehLfspy; kiy
KfLfspy; ntl; bAk; > cwpQ; rpAk; vLf; fg; gLfpwJ. ,J eP upy; vspjhf fiuAk; nghUs;
MFk;.
2006 y; kl; Lk; ntl; b> cwppQ;rp vLf;fg;gl;l ANudpa jhJ
fdlh
9862 ld; 25%
M];jpNuypah
7593 ld; 19%
f[fp]; jhd;
5279 ld; 13%
mnkupf; fh
1672 ld; 4%
gpw mZrf; jp ehLfs;
16202 ld; 39%
nkhj; jk;
40608 ld; 100%

mZciy vupnghUshd ANudpaj;ij nrwpT+l;Lk;; Kiw :
ANudpa jhJit miuj;J ePupy; myRk;NghJ ANudpak; Mf; i]L gpupAk; . gpd;
,ij cyu;j;jp> mOj;jp kQ;rs; Nff;fhf khw; wg; gLk; . xU gTd; l; kQ;rs; Nff; 10 ld;
epyf;fupf;Fr; rkkhFk;. ,k;kQ;rs; Nff;Fld; iel; upf; mkpyj;ij fye;J ANudpak;
n`f;rh FNshiuL Mtpahf khw; wg;gl;L gpd; ,J cau; mOj;jj;jpy; ANudpak; 235
gpy; yl; Mf jahupf; fg; gLk; . ,e; j gpy; yl; fs; mZciy vupnghUs; ftr
cgfuzj;jpy; Njitf;Fj; jFe;jgb Nru;j;J itf;fg;gLk;.
mZciyapd; ikaj;jpy; KO mZgpsTf; Fg; gpd; ANudpa vupnghUs;
fopTepiyapy; ftrj;Jld; mZciyapy;,Ue;J mfw;wg;gLk;. ,e;j fopT Once
Through njhoy; El; gnkdpy; 50 mb Mo Fsj; jpy; gy Mz; Lfs; eP updhy;
Fspu;tpf;fg;gLk;. gpd; ,itfs; cyu;gPg;gha;fspy; milf;fg;gl;L Nrkpf;fg;gLk;.
kW nra;Kiw njhopy;El;gnkdpy; fopTfs; kW nra;Kiw Miyf;F mDg;gg;gl;L
gpwF kP z;Lk; mjw;nfd cs;s mZciyapy; vupnghUshf gad;gLk;. kPjkhFk;
fopTfs; fz; zhb rpkpo; fspy; milf; fg; gLk; .

nray;gLk; cyfshtpa mZkpd;epiyaq;fs; :
vz;
ehLfs;
mZciy
tiffs;
ciyfs;
vz; zpf; if
kpd;
cw;gj;jp
jpwd
nkhj;j
fjpupaf; f
fopTfs;
1 mnkupf; fh
BWR, PWR
104 100,266 MW 67680
2 gpuhd; ];
PWR
58 63110 MW 42599
3 [g; ghd;
BWR, PWR
41 35575 MW 32086
4 u\; ah
PWRVVER,
32 22697 MW 15320
2
14/ 01/ 2012
3
5 ,q; fpyhe; J
AGR, PWR,GCR
19 10982 MW 7413
6 njd; nfhupah
PWR, PHWR
19 17971 MW 12130
7 fdlh
PHWR CANDU
18 12569 MW 8484
8 ,e; jpah
PHWR
20 4780 MW 3227
9 n[u; kdp
BWR, PWR
9 11993 MW 13732
10 cf; iud;
PWRVVER
15 13168 MW 8888
11 rP dh
PHWR,PWR
14 10157 MW 6856
12 ]; tP ld;
BWR
10 9101 MW 6143
13 ]; ngapd;
BWR, PWR
8 7442 MW 5023
14 ngy; [pak;
PWR
7 5755 MW 3885
15 ijthd;
BWR, PWR
6 4884 MW 3297
16 nrf; upg;gg;ypf;
PWR
6 3707 MW 2502
17 ]; tpr; ru;yhe;J
PWR
5 3220 MW 2174
18
]; yhntf;
upg;gg;ypf;
PWRVVER 4 1656 MW 1118
19 `q; Nfup
PWR
4 1889 MW 1275
20 gpd; yhe;J
BWR, PWRVVER
4 2676 MW 1806
21 gy;Nfupah
PWRVVER
2 1906 MW 1287
22 gpNurpy;
PWR
2 1896 MW 1280
23 mu; [d; ildh
PHWR
2 935 MW 631
24 nkf; rpNfh
BWR
2 1600 MW 1080
25 UNkdpah
PHWR
2 1305 MW 881
26 njd; Mg; gpupf; fh
PWR
2 1842 MW 1243
27 ghfp]; jhd;
PWRPHWR
2 425 MW 287
28 Mu;Nkdpah
PWRVVER
1 376 MW 254
29 neju; yhe; J
PWR
1 452 MW 305
30 ];yhNtdpah
PWR
1 676 MW 456
nkhj; jk; 420 354988 MW 253342

3
14/ 01/ 2012
4
,e;jpahtpy; kpd; cw;gj;jp :

kpd; cw;gj;jp
Kiw
epWTk;
nryT
Rs.Crores/MW
cw; gj; jp
jpwd;
MW
%
Mz; L
cw; gj; jp msT
TWh
kpd;
fl; lzk;
(Rs/KWH)
epyf; fup 6.2 102863 55.45 518.430 2.40
vz;iz 4 1199 0.65 6.043 4.00
vupthA 3.5 17742 9.56 89.420 3.50
mZ rf; jp 6 4780 2.58 20.076 3.10
#upa rf; jp 11 250 0.13 0.525 12.15
fhw;whiy 4.5 12009 6.47 42.032 4.35
jhtu vupnghUs; 5 7903 4.26 39.831 4.12
ePu; kpd;rhuk; 6 38748 20.89 130.193 2.50
nkhj; jk; 185494 100.00 846.549
cyfshtpa kpd; cw; gj; jp Kiwfs; :
kpd;
cw;gj;jp
Kiw
epWTk;
nryT
Million$/MW
Mz; L
cw;gj;jp
msTTWh
%
kpd;
fl; lzk;
(Cent/KWH)
MtpahFk;
jz; zP u;
(Litter/MW)
fopT /
MW/Year
epyf; fup
2.25 8263
40.80
4.8 100
400TONS
FlyAsh
vz; iz
2.25 1111
5.49
4.8 100
NA
vupthA
3.1 4301
21.24
4.8 100
NA
mZ rf; jp
4 2730
13.48
4.3 75000
0.37TONS
(0.027TONS
HLW)
#upa rf;jp
4.5 13
0.06
18 10
UsedAcid&
Battery
fhw;whiy
1.9 219
1.08
6.6 1
NIL
jhtu
vupnghUs;
3.16 198
0.98
6.8 3600
NA
eP u;
kpd;rhuk;
4.13 3288
16.24
5.1 11000
NA
[pNahju; ky;
2.3 65
0.32
6 50
Lithiumin
Ground
Nt];l;`P l;
3.6 65
0.32
6 50
NA
nkhj;jk;
20235
100

TWh: Terra Watt Hours =10,00,000 MW Hours
4
14/ 01/ 2012
5
mZkpd; ciyfspd; epWTk; nryT kpfTk; mjpfk; vd; whYk; kypthd vupnghUs;
nrytpdhy; Fiwe;j fl;lzj;jpy; mjpf msT kpd; Njitia G+u;j;jp nra;fpw ed;ik
xU Gwk; ,Ue;jhYk; > mlq; fh jhfj;Jld; cyfpd; ePu; tsj; ij tpuak; nra;fpwJ.
NkYk; epu; thfk;> ghJfhg;G fl;likg;G FiwghL> ,aw;if Nguplu; Mfpatw;why;
ngUk; tpgj;jpw;F cl;gLfpwJ.

2011 March 11 [g; ghd; /GFrpkh ilr; rp mZciy tpgj;jpd; fLikia tpsf;fj;
Njitapy;iy. Fspu;tpg; ghd; cile;J rpjwpajhy; mZciy cUfp ANudpak;
cs;spl;L midj;J fl;Lkhd nghUl; fSk; fjpupaf;f fopTfSk; G+kpf;fbapy;
Gije; jij mfo; e; J mikjpg; gLj; j 14 gpy;ypad; lhyu; I (&70,000 Nfhb) jw;NghJ
[g; ghd; muR epjpahf xJf;fpAs;sJ. ,g;gzp 25 Mz; Lfs; eilngWk; . Mf Nkw; F
Mg;gpupf;f flw;fiu Xuj;jpy; 3 gpy; ypad; tUlq;fSf;F Kd; ,aw;ifahd mZgpsT
Vw; gl; ljhf Muha; r; rpfspy; mwptijg; Nghy; gpw; fhy re; jjpapdu; [g; ghdpa
flNyhuj; jpy; kpfg; ngUk; mZgpsT Vw; gl;ljhf Ma;Tfs; Nkw;nfhs;thu;fs;. tpgj;ij
njhlu;e;J nray;gLk; mZciyfis %bLk; eltbf; iffis gy ehLfs;
Nkw;nfhz;Ls;sd. n[u;kdp 8 ciyfis 2011 Nk khjj; jpy; %btpl; lJ.

%lg;gl;l mZciyfs;> kWnray;Kiw Miyfs;:

vz; ehL
mZ
ciy
fhuzk;
%ba
Mz; L
%Ltjw;fhd
nryT
1
mnkupf; fh
22
tpgj;J> kf;fs; vjpu;g;G>
mDkjp lXh<H>fhyhtjp
1963 1996
20,000
MillionDollar
2
[g; ghd;
14
ngUk; tpgj;J> epyeLf;fk;>
murpd; KbT
1995 2011
14BillionDollar
2
n[u; kdp
19
tpgj;J> kf;fs; vjpu;g;G>
murpd; KbT
1988 2011
10,000
MillionDollar
3
u\; ah
4
tpgj; J>murpd; KbT
19701980
30,000
MillionDollar
4
gpuhd; ]; 11
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G> tpgj;J>
kf;fs;vjpu;g;G>
murpd; KbT
2003 2008
20,200
MillionEuro
5
,q; fpyhe; J
23
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
rpWtpgj;J>kf;fs;vjpu;g;G>
murpd; KbT
1990 2005
40,000
MillionEuro
6
cf; iud;
4
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
ngUk;tpgj; J(nru;ndhgps; )>
kf; fs; vjpu; g; G>murpd; KbT
1990 2005 13 Billion Dollar
7
gy;Nfupah
4
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
murpd; KbT
1990 2005
10,000
MillionEuro
8
,j; jhyp
4
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
murpd; KbT
1990 2005
10,000
MillionEuro
9
]; tP ld;
3
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
murpd; KbT
1990 2005
7,500
MillionEuro
5
14/ 01/ 2012
6
10
f[fp]; jhd;
1
mDkjp fhyhtjp> murpd;
KbT
19641999
500
MillionDollar
11
kw;w
INuhg; gpa
ehLfs;
6
fjpupaf;fghjpg;G>
murpd; KbT
1990 2005
12,500
MillionEuro

ANudpa fopTfs; Nkyhz; ik :
ANudpa Ruq;fq;fspy; Vw;gLgit
vupnghUs; nrwpT+l;Lk; gFjpapy; Vw;gLgit
mZciyapy; mZgpsg;gpw;Fg;gpd; kPjkhFk; ANudpak;
mZciy jsthl nghUs; fspd; fopTfs;
Fspu; tpf; Fk; jput kw; Wk; thAf; fspd; fopTfs;
kWnra;Kiw Miyapy; Vw;gLk; fopTfs;
ANudpak; GSNlhdpak; fyg;G thA mZciyapy; kPjkhFk; fopTfs;
tP dhd ghJfhg; G cilfs; > fUtpfs;
mZciy tpgj;Jf;fs; %yk; fjpupaf;fk; ngw; w ePu; > epyk; > fhw; W> czT>
ciwAs; Mfpad
Nkw;fz;l fjpupaf;fk; nfhz;l fopTfis mZrf;jp xOq;F Kfik
4 gpupTfshf tifg;gLj;jp fjpupaf;fj;ij mikjpg;gLj;Jk; xOq; F tpjpfis
Vw;gLj;jpAs;sJ.
1) HLW cau; epiy fjpupaf;fk;
mZgpsg; gpy; kP jkhFk; ANudpa vupnghUs; mZciy nray;gLk;
gFjpapNyNa 5 Mz;Lfs;tiu ePu; Row; rp nfhz;l Fsj;jpy; Mwg;Nghl Ntz;Lk;.
gpwF kpfTk; cWjpkpf;f epyj;jb ePu; kpf Moj; jpy; cs; s kiyapy; fpilkl; lkhf
Fif ntl;b epue;jukhfNth my;yJ mbf; fb Ma;Tf;Fl;gLk;gbNah ghJfhg;gha;
milj;Jitf;f Ntz;Lk;. mnkupf;f mZciyfspy; Mwg;Nghlg;gl;l 70,000; ld;
HLW fis vf;fh kiyapy; Fif ntl;b 2017 f; Fs; milg; gjh? ,y;iyah...
vd;gij BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION KbT nra; a cs; sJ. kw; wehLfSk;
nghUj;jkhd kiyfis fz;lwpe;J tUfpwJ. kW nra;Kiwf;F gpd; kPjkhFk; HLW
fisAk; fz;zhb rpkpo;fspy; (Vitrified Glass Canisters) milj;J ,NjKiwapy;jhd;
mikjpg; gLj; j Ntz; Lk; .

2) ILW, LLW, VLLW ,ilepiy> fP o;epiy> kpff;fP o;epiy fopTfs; :
ANudpa fopTfs; jtpu; j; J kw; w midj;J Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s fopTfis jz;zP u;
kw;Wk; rpy urhad nghUl;fs; %yk; mZciy tshfj; jpNyNa gy Mz;Lfs;
mikjpg; gLj; j Ntz; Lk; . tpgj; J %yk; ghjpg;gile;j gFjpfspd; fjpupaf;fj;ij
kl; Lg; gLj; j Nkw; fz; l KiwfisNa gpd;gw;w Ntz;Lk;. ,jw;fhFk; nryTfs;
midj;jpw;Fk;; mZciy epu;thfNk nghWg;G. Njitg;gl;lhy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l ehLfs;
khdpak; mspj; J cjtyhk; .

6
14/ 01/ 2012
7
,Jtiu ele; j mZciy tpgj; Jf; fs; :

Kjy; tpgj; Jk; kf;fs; mwpahikAk;.
Brk;gu; 12, 1952 fdlh xl; lhth ejpf; fiuapy; cs; s mZciy ntbj; jJ cyf
kf;fSf;F njupahj xd;whFk;. 35 fpNyh ANudpak; fjpupaf;f fdeP Uld; ejpapy;
fye;J ngUk; ghjpg;ig Vw;gLj;jpaJ.
1979 khu;r; 28 tiu mnkupf;fhtpy; 5, u\; ahtpy; 2, INuhg;gpa ehLfspy; jyh
xd;W. njhopy;El;gk;> ,af;Fjy; FiwghL fhuzkhf mZciy tpgj;J
Vw; gl; lijAk; cyf kf; fs; mwpatpy;iy. mnkupf;fhtpd; j; uP iky; Iyhd; l;
mZciy tpgj;Jjhd; cyf kf;fSf;F ngUk; mr; rj; ij Kjypy; Vw; gLj; jpaJ.
2011 /GFrpkh ilr; rp mZciy eP q; fyhf nru; ndhgps; cs; spl; l kw; w 33
mZciyfspy; njhopy;El;gk;> ,af; Fjy; FiwghL fhuzkhfNt mZciy
cUfp> tpgj;Jk; mopTk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ.

ghjpg;Gfs; :

vz; ehL
tpgj; jpy;
,wg;G
Gw;WNehahy; ,wg;G
(Thiroid, leukaemia, lung,
melanoma cancers)
tpgj;J gFjpapy; ,Ue;J
ntspNaw;wg;gl;ltu;fs;
1
mnkupf;fh
11 1,94,930 NA
2
cf; iud;
56 4,000 4,00,000
3
u\; ah
5 3,050 NA
4
gpuhd; ];
8 3,250 NA
5
[g; ghd;
2 3,60,000 (fzpg;G) 80,000
6
f[fp]; jhd;
NA 1,00,000 NA
7
M];jpNuypah
NA 3,378 NA
8
fdlh
NA 24,450 NA

mZrf;jp vjpu;g;G ,af;fq;fs; :
ANudpa Ruq; fk; kpFe;j M];jpNuypahtpy;>fjpupaf;f Mgj;ij czu;e;jhy; mq;F
mZciyfis mikj;jpl kf;fs; mDkjpf;fNtapy;iy. NkYk; mZciy tpgj;J>
mZfopT Nrkpg; gpy; cs;s nryT> GSNlhdpaf; flj; jyhy; jPtputhjpfsplk;
mZMAj tha;g;G> kw;Wk; gutpLk; fjpupaf;f Neha;fs;> kw;Wk; kugZ rpijT
fhuzkhf cyfshtpa mstpy; ; 1979 Kjy; fpuP d; ny/g;l; M];jpNuypah> fhk;n\y;
myad;]; mikupf;fh> /gpud;l;]; M/g; vu;j; ,d;lu;Nerdy; vd 77 ehLfspy;
mZrf;jp vjpu;g;G ,af;fq;fs; eilngw;W tUfpd;wd.,jd; tpisthfNt khw;W
vuprf;jpf;fhd fz;Lgpbg;Gf;fs; cyfpy; Vw;gl;L tUfpwJ. Nrhyhu;> [pNahnju;ky; >
fhw; whiy> fly; miy> flypw; Fs; fhw; whiy vd tpQ; Qhd fz; Lgpbg; Gfs;
ehd; Ffhy; gha;r;rypy; Kd;Ndwp tUfpwJ.
7
14/ 01/ 2012
8
Qhdk; gaj;jpd; ntspg;ghL> mr;rj;jpd; njspTepiy.

vdNt mZgpsg; ig jtpu; j; J khw;Wtopia fhz; gNj
kdpjFy Nkd;ikf;F cfe; jjhf ,Uf;Fk;.
,y;iynadpy;
fu; j; ju; >
ghtk; nra; j efuq;fshd
NrhNjhikAk;>nfhk;khuhitAk; mopj;jJNghy;
mZgpsg;gpw;F cl;gLk; ghtg;gl; l efuq;fs;
mope;JNghtJ epr;rak;.

kurunthappankr@yahoo.co.inchemozhi@yahoo.co.in
References :
BibleOldtestament IEA(InternationalEnergyAgency
AncientGreekphilosophers RadioactivityWastemanagement
Chapter8EnergyReportNuclearEnergyTexasUS #Occupy#TheMovementActionPlanBillMoyer
1987
InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency greenleft.org.au/node/42656
Guardian.co.uk/NuclearReactorWorldList BlueRibbonCommission2011WashingtonDC
Wikipedia.org/ListofCivilianNuclearAccidents SpentFuelReprocessingReport2011France
Wikipedia.org/chernobylaccident NPCILIndia,CEAIndia,WorldHealthOrganisation
Wikipedia.org/NuclearPowerinGermany WorldRenewableEnergyReport
DeCommissioningStatusNRCLicensedPower
Reactors,NRCUnitedStatesofAmerica
RenewableEnergyReportCostofGenerationUpdate,
CaliforniaEnergyCommission
WorldnuclearAssociationDecommissioningnuclear
facility
www.thewindpower.net/statistics_world_en.php
BBCNewsSovietnucleartestsleaveKazakhfallout www.throid.org.au/Information/BurtonThCa.html
CancerIncidenceandMortalityProjectionsinNew
SouthWales:
Cancercouncilqueensland,BBCNewsMEDIA
REPORTSKazakhstanhighlightsnucleartestaftermath
LeukaemiamortalityaroundFrenchnuclearsites CancerlegacyofnuclearaccidentGreenleft
TheChernobylForum:20032005Secondrevised
versionInternationalAtomicEnergyAgency
CompilationofRadiationStudiesShowingHealth
Effects
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media
centre/pr/2006/IARCBriefingChernobyl.pdf
Depleteduraniumandradiationinducedlungcancer
andleukaemiaRFMOULD,MSc,PhD
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiolo
gysurveilance/documents/document/acspc029771.pdf
TheProblem:NuclearRadiationanditsBiologicalEffectsDr
RosalieBertellISBN0913990252pages1563.
ReprocessingIsNottheSolutiontotheNuclear
WasteProblemNIRSEnergyFactSheet
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti
Nuclear_movement_in_Australia4/
ViewsforThoughts
ek; ,Ug;Gf;fhf.
G+Tyfpy; ez;gu;fs;
FUe;jg;gd;> uhkr;re;jpud;
8
14/ 01/ 2012
1/11/12 Atomism - Wkipedia, the free encclopedia
Atomism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atomism (from ancient Greek atomos, meaning "uncuttable") is a natural philosophy that developed in several
ancient traditions. The atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental parts: indivisible atoms
and empty void.
According to Aristotle, atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes.
They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to
form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic
substances in the world.
[1][2]
References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India and ancient Greece. In India the Jain
[3]

[4]
, Ajivika
and Carvaka schools of atomism may date back to the 6th century BCE.
[5]
The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools
later developed theories on how atoms combined into more complex objects.
[6]
In the West, the references to
atoms emerged in the 5th century BCE with Leucippus, and Democritus.
[7]
Whether Indian culture influenced
Greek or vice versa or whether both evolved independently is a matter of dispute.
[8]
Of importance to the philosophical concept of atomism is the historical accident that the particles which chemists
and physicists of the early 19th century thought were indivisible, and therefore identified with the uncuttable a-toms
of long tradition, were found in the 20th century to be composed of even smaller entities: electrons, neutrons, and
protons. Further experiments showed that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. At present, quarks, electrons,
and other fundamental particles such as muons, taus, neutrinos, and gauge bosons show no experimental evidence
of size or substructure. However, the possibility that they too might be composed of smaller particles cannot be
ruled out. Although the connection to historical atomism is at best tenuous, these particles, rather than chemical
"atoms", are roughly analogous to the traditional indivisible objects.

9
14/ 01/ 2012

2/12 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

Tr aditional atomism in philosophy
The word atom is understood in primarily two distinct ways: firstly, by the physical sciences; secondly, by
philosophy. Atomism is traditionally associated with the latter, the traditional argument of which being that atoms are
the basic building blocks of all real, knowable matter, and make up absolutely anything that exists. Atoms are the
smallest possible division of matter, do not have physical parts, and cannot be split, cut nor in any way further
divided; they are either sizeless (point-sized) or they have a tiny size. Those that have a tiny size are called
Democritean atoms. This was the perception in Greek theories of atomism. Indian Buddhists, such as Dharmakirti
and others, also contributed to well-developed theories of atomism, and which involve momentary (instantaneous)
atoms, that flash in and out of existence (Kalapas). The tradition of atomism leads to the position that only atoms
exist, and there are no composite objects (objects with parts), which would mean that human bodies, clouds,
planets, and whatnot all do not exist. This consequence of atomism was openly discussed by atomists such as
Democritus, Hobbes, and perhaps even Kant (there is a debate over whether or not Kant was an atomist) among
others, and it is also called mereological nihilism or metaphysical nihilism. In contemporary philosophy, atomism is
not as popular as it has been in past times, because many contemporary philosophers are not willing to argue that
only atoms exist, wherein there are not any things like trees, etc. Simples theory is a similar theory to atomism, but
where unlike mereological nihilism, philosophers do hold that more than just atoms exist (such as cars and trees
made up of the atoms).
Gr eek atomism
Is there an ultimate, indivisible unit of matter?
In the 5th century BC, Leucippus and his pupil Democritus proposed that all matter was composed of small
indivisible particles called atoms, in order to reconcile two conflicting schools of thought on the nature of reality. On
one side was Heraclitus, who believed that the nature of all existence is change. On the other side was Parmenides,
who believed instead that all change is illusion.
Parmenides denied the existence of motion, change and void. He believed all existence to be a single, all-
encompassing and unchanging mass (a concept known as monism), and that change and motion were mere
illusions. This conclusion, as well as the reasoning that lead to it, may indeed seem baffling to the modern empirical
mind, but Parmenides explicitly rejected sensory experience as the path to an understanding of the universe, and
instead used purely abstract reasoning. Firstly, he believed there is no such thing as void, equating it with non-being
(i.e. "if the void is, then it is not nothing; therefore it is not the void"). This in turn meant that motion is impossible,
because there is no void to move into.
[9]

[10]
He also wrote all that is must be an indivisible unity, for if it were
manifold, then there would have to be a void that could divide it (and he did not believe the void exists). Finally, he
stated that the all encompassing Unity is unchanging, for the Unity already encompasses all that is and can be.
[9]
10
14/ 01/ 2012
1/11/12 Atomism - Wikipedia, the free encclopedia
3/12 en.w kipedia.org/w ki/Atomism
Element Polyhedron
Number
of
Faces
Number
of
Triangles
Fire
Tetrahedron
(Animation)
4 24
Air
Octahedron
(Animation)
8 48
Water
Icosahedron
(Animation)
20 120
Earth
Cube
(Animation)
6 24
Geometrical Simple Bodies According to Plato
Democritus accepted most of Parmenides' arguments, except for the idea that change is an illusion. He believed
change was real, and if it was not then at least the illusion had to be explained. He thus supported the concept of
void, and stated that the universe is made up of many Parmenidean entities that move around in the void.
[9]
The
void is infinite and provides the space in which the atoms can pack or scatter differently. The different possible
packings and scatterings within the void make up the shifting outlines and bulk of the objects that organisms feel,
see, eat, hear, smell, and taste. While organisms may feel hot or cold, hot and cold actually have no real existence.
They are simply sensations produced in organisms by the different packings and scatterings of the atoms in the void
that compose the object that organisms sense as being "hot" or "cold."
The work of Democritus only survives in secondhand reports, some of which are unreliable or conflicting. Much of
the best evidence of Democritus' theory of atomism is reported by Aristotle in his discussions of Democritus' and
Plato's contrasting views on the types of indivisibles composing the natural world.
[11]
Geometry and atoms
Plato (c. 427c. 347 BC) objected to the
mechanistic purposelessness of the atomism of
Democritus. He argued that atoms just crashing
into other atoms could never produce the beauty
and form of the world. In the Timaeus, (28B
29A) Plato insisted that the cosmos was not
eternal but was created, although its creator
framed it after an eternal, unchanging model.
One part of that creation were the four simple
bodies of fire, air, water, and earth. But Plato did
not consider these corpuscles to be the most
basic level of reality, for in his view they were
made up of an unchanging level of reality, which
was mathematical. These simple bodies were
geometric solids, the faces of which were, in
turn, made up of triangles. The square faces of
the cube were each made up of four isosceles
right-angled triangles and the triangular faces of
the tetrahedron, octahedron, and icosahedron
were each made up of six right-angled triangles.
He postulated the geometric structure of the
simple bodies of the four elements as
summarized in the table to the right. The cube,
with its flat base and stability, was assigned to earth; the tetrahedron was assigned to fire because its penetrating
points and sharp edges made it mobile. The points and edges of the octahedron and icosahedron were blunter and
so these less mobile bodies were assigned to air and water. Since the simple bodies could be decomposed into
triangles, and the triangles reassembled into atoms of different elements, Plato's model offered a plausible account
of changes among the primary substances.
[12]

[13]
The rejection of atoms
11
14/ 01/ 2012
Sometime before 330 BC Aristotle asserted that the elements of fire, air, earth, and water were not made of atoms,
but were continuous. Aristotle considered the existence of a void, which was required by atomic theories, to violate
physical principles. Change took place not by the rearrangement of atoms to make new structures, but by
transformation of matter from what it was in potential to a new actuality. (This theory is called hylomorphism.) A
piece of wet clay, when acted upon by a potter, takes on its potential to be an actual drinking mug. Aristotle has
often been criticized for rejecting atomism, but in ancient Greece the atomic theories of Democritus remained "pure
speculations, incapable of being put to any experimental test. Granted that atomism was, in the long run, to prove
far more fruitful than any qualitative theory of matter, in the short run the theory that Aristotle proposed must have
seemed in some respects more promising".
[14][15]
Later ancient atomism
Epicurus (341270) studied atomism with Nausiphanes who had been a student of Democritus. Although Epicurus
was certain of the existence of atoms and the void, he was less sure we could adequately explain specific natural
phenomena such as earthquakes, lightning, comets, or the phases of the Moon (Lloyd 1973, 256). Few of
Epicurus's writings survive and those that do reflect his interest in applying Democritus's theories to assist people in
taking responsibility for themselves and for their own happinesssince he held there are no gods around that can
help them. He understood gods' role as moral ideals.
His ideas are also represented in the derivative works of Democritus's followers, such as Lucretius's On the
Nature of Things. These derivative works allow us to work out several segments of his theory on how the universe
began its current stage. The atoms and the void are eternal. And after collisions that shatter large objects into
smaller objects, the resulting dust, still composed of the same eternal atoms as the prior configurations of the
universe, falls into a whirling motion that draws the dust into larger objects again to begin another cycle.
Atomism and ethics
Some later philosophers attributed the idea that man created gods; the gods did not create man to Democritus. For
example, Sextus Empiricus noted:
Some people think that we arrived at the idea of gods from the remarkable things that happen in the world.
Democritus ... says that the people of ancient times were frightened by happenings in the heavens such as
thunder, lightning, ..., and thought that they were caused by gods.
[16]
Three hundred years after Epicurus, Lucretius in his epic poem On the Nature of Things would depict him as the
hero who crushed the monster Religion through educating the people in what was possible in the atoms and what
was not possible in the atoms. However, Epicurus expressed a non-aggressive attitude characterized by his
statement: "The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can;
and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all
dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life." [1] (http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html)
The exile of atomism
While Aristotelian philosophy eclipsed the importance of the atomists, their work was still preserved and exposited
through commentaries on the works of Aristotle. In the 2nd century, Galen (AD 129216) presented extensive
discussions of the Greek atomists, especially Epicurus, in his Aristotle commentaries. According to historian of
atomism Joshua Gregory, there was no serious work done with atomism from the time of Galen until Gassendi and
Descartes resurrected it in the 17th century; "the gap between these two 'modern naturalists' and the ancient
12
14/ 01/ 2012
Atomists marked "the exile of the atom" and "it is universally admitted that the Middle Ages had abandoned
Atomism, and virtually lost it." However, scholars still had Aristotle's critiques of atomism, and it seems unlikely that
all ideas of atomism could have been lost in the West. In the Medieval universities there were rare expressions of
atomistic philosophy. For example, in the 14th century Nicholas of Autrecourt considered that matter, space, and
time were all made up of indivisible atoms, points, and instants and that all generation and corruption took place by
the rearrangement of material atoms. The similarities of his ideas with those of al-Ghazali suggest that Nicholas may
have been familiar with Ghazali's work, perhaps through Averroes' refutation of it (Marmara, 197374).
Still, "the exile of the atom" is an appropriate description of the interim between the ancient Greeks and the revival
of Western atomism in the 16th century, in view of atomism's success elsewhere during that time. If the atom was in
exile from the west, it was in India and Islam that atomistic traditions continued.
Indian atomism
The Indian atomistic position, like many movements in Indian Philosophy and Mathematics, starts with an argument
from Linguistics. The Vedic etymologist and grammarian Yaska (ca. 7th c. BC) in his Nirukta, in dealing with
models for how linguistic structures get to have their meanings, takes the atomistic position that words are the
"primary" carrier of meaning i.e. words have a preferred ontological status in defining meaning. This position was
to be the subject of a fierce debate in the Indian tradition from the early Christian era till the 18th century, involving
different philosophers from the Nyaya, Mimamsa and Buddhist schools.
In the pratishakhya text (ca. 2nd c. BCE), the gist of the controversy was stated cryptically in the sutra form as
"saMhitA pada-prakr^tiH".
[17]
According to the atomist view, the words (pada) would be the primary elements
(prakrti) out of which the sentence is constructed, while the holistic view considers the sentence as the primary
entity, originally "given" in its context of utterance, and the words are arrived at only through analysis and
abstraction.
[18]
These two positions came to be called a-kShaNDa-pakSha (indivisibility or sentence-holism), a position
developed later by Bhartrihari (c. 500 AD), vs. kShaNDa-pakSha (atomism), a position adopted by the Mimamsa
and Nyaya schools (Note: kShanDa = fragmented; "a-kShanDa" = whole).
Between the 5th and 3rd century BC, the atom (anu or a. or) is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 8, Verse
9):
kavi pur. am anusitram a. or a. ysam anusmared ya sarvasya dhtram acintya-rpam ditya-
var. a tamasa parastt
One meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the atom, yet the maintainer of everything;
whose form is inconceivable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature
The ancient "shAshvata-vAda" doctrine of eternalism, which held that elements are eternal, is also suggestive of a
possible starting point for atomism (Gangopadhyaya 1981).
There has been some debate among scholars as to the origin of Indian atomism; the general consensus is that the
Indian and Greek versions of atomism developed independently. However, there is some doubt on this, given the
similarities between Indian atomism and Greek atomism and the proximity of India to scholastic Europe, as well as
the account, related by Diogenes Laertius, of Democritus "making acquaintance with the Gymnosophists in
India".
[19]
The atomist position had transcended language into epistemology by the time that NyayaVaisesika,
Buddhist and Jaina theology were developing mature philosophical positions.
13
14/ 01/ 2012
Will Durant wrote in Our Oriental Heritage:
"Two systems of Indian thought propound physical theories suggestively similar to those of Greece.
Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world was composed of atoms as many
in kind as the various elements. The Jains more nearly approximated to Democritus by teaching that all
atoms were of the same kind, producing different effects by diverse modes of combinations. Kanada
believed light and heat to be varieties of the same substance; Udayana taught that all heat comes from
the sun; and Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as composed of minute particles emitted by
substances and striking the eye."
Indian atomism in the Middle Ages was still mostly philosophical and/or religious in intent, though it was also
scientific. Because the "infallible Vedas", the oldest Hindu texts, do not mention atoms (though they do mention
elements), atomism was not orthodox in many schools of Hindu philosophy, although accommodationist
interpretations or assumptions of lost text justified the use of atomism for non-orthodox schools of Hindu thought.
The Buddhist and Jaina schools of atomism however, were more willing to accept the ideas of atomism.
Nyaya. Vaisesika school
Main articles: Nyaya and Vaisesika
The NyayaVaisesika school developed one of the earliest forms of atomism; scholars date the Nyaya and
Vaisesika texts from the 6th to 1st centuries BC. Like the Buddhist atomists, the Vaisesika had a pseudo-
Aristotelian theory of atomism. They posited the four elemental atom types, but in Vaisesika physics atoms had 24
different possible qualities, divided between general extensive properties and specific (intensive) properties. Like
the Jaina school, the NyayaVaisesika atomists had elaborate theories of how atoms combine. In both Jaina and
Vaisesika atomism, atoms first combine in pairs (dyads), and then group into trios of pairs (triads), which are the
smallest visible units of matter.
[20]
Buddhist school
Main article: Buddhist atomism
The Buddhist atomists had very qualitative, Aristotelian-style atomic theory. According to ancient Buddhist
atomism, which probably began developing before the 4th century BC, there are four kinds of atoms,
corresponding to the standard elements. Each of these elements has a specific property, such as solidity or motion,
and performs a specific function in mixtures, such as providing support or causing growth. Like the Hindu Jains, the
Buddhists were able to integrate a theory of atomism with their theological presuppositions. Later Indian Buddhist
philosophers, such as Dharmakirti and Dignga, considered atoms to be point-sized, durationless, and made of
energy.
J aina school
Further information: Jain cosmology, Dravya (Jainism), and Karma in Jainism
The most elaborate and well-preserved Indian theory of atomism comes from the philosophy of the Jaina school,
dating back to at least the 6th century BC. Some of the Jain texts that refer to matter and atoms are
Pancastikayasara, Kalpasutra, Tattvarthasutra and Pannavana Suttam. The Jains envisioned the world as consisting
wholly of atoms, except for souls. Paramus or atoms were considered as the basic building blocks of all matter.
14
14/ 01/ 2012
Their concept of atoms was very similar to classical atomism, differing primarily in the specific properties of atoms.
Each atom, according to Jain philosophy, has one kind of taste, one smell, one color, and two kinds of touch,
though it is unclear what was meant by "kind of touch". Atoms can exist in one of two states: subtle, in which case
they can fit in infinitesimally small spaces, and gross, in which case they have extension and occupy a finite space.
Certain characteristics of Paramu correspond with that sub-atomic particles. For example Paramu is
characterized by continuous motion either in a straight line or in case of attractions from other Paramus, it follows
a curved path. This corresponds with the description of orbit of electrons across the Nucleus. Ultimate particles are
also described as particles with positive (Snigdha i.e. smooth charge) and negative (Rksa rough) charges that
provide them the binding force. Although atoms are made of the same basic substance, they can combine based on
their eternal properties to produce any of six "aggregates", which seem to correspond with the Greek concept of
"elements": earth, water, shadow, sense objects, karmic matter, and unfit matter. To the Jains, karma was real, but
was a naturalistic, mechanistic phenomenon caused by buildups of subtle karmic matter within the soul. They also
had detailed theories of how atoms could combine, react, vibrate, move, and perform other actions, all of which
were thoroughly deterministic.
Islamic atomism
See also: Early Islamic philosophy: Atomism and Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam
Atomistic philosophies are found very early in Islamic philosophy, and represent a synthesis of the Greek and Indian
ideas. Like both the Greek and Indian versions, Islamic atomism was a charged topic that had the potential for
conflict with the prevalent religious orthodoxy, but it was instead more often favoured by orthodox Islamic
theologians. It was such a fertile and flexible idea that, as in Greece and India, it flourished in some leading schools
of Islamic thought.
Asharite atomism
See also: Ash'ari
The most successful form of Islamic atomism was in the Asharite school of Islamic theology, most notably in the
work of the theologian al-Ghazali (10581111). In Asharite atomism, atoms are the only perpetual, material things
in existence, and all else in the world is "accidental" meaning something that lasts for only an instant. Nothing
accidental can be the cause of anything else, except perception, as it exists for a moment. Contingent events are not
subject to natural physical causes, but are the direct result of God's constant intervention, without which nothing
could happen. Thus nature is completely dependent on God, which meshes with other Asharite Islamic ideas on
causation, or the lack thereof (Gardet 2001). Al-Ghazali also used the theory to support his theory of
occasionalism. In a sense, the Asharite theory of atomism has far more in common with Indian atomism than it does
with Greek atomism.
[21]
Averroism
See also: Averroism
Other traditions in Islam rejected the atomism of the Asharites and expounded on many Greek texts, especially
those of Aristotle. An active school of philosophers in Spain, including the noted commentator Averroes (AD
11261198) explicitly rejected the thought of al-Ghazali and turned to an extensive evaluation of the thought of
Aristotle. Averroes commented in detail on most of the works of Aristotle and his commentaries did much to guide
15
14/ 01/ 2012
the interpretation of Aristotle in later Jewish and Christian scholastic thought.
Atomic r enaissance
With few exceptions, much of the curriculum in the universities of Europe was based on Aristotle for most of the
Middle Ages (Kargon 1966). Scholasticism was standard science in the time of Isaac Newton, but in the 17th
century, a renewed interest in Epicurian atomism and Corpuscularianism as a hybrid or an alternative to Aristotelian
physics had begun to mount outside the classroom. The main figures in the rebirth of atomism were Ren Descartes,
Pierre Gassendi, and Robert Boyle, as well as other notable figures.
One of the first groups of atomists in England was a cadre of amateur scientists known as the Northumberland
circle, led by Henry Percy (15851632), the 9th Earl of Northumberland. Although they published little of account,
they helped to disseminate atomistic ideas among the burgeoning scientific culture of England, and may have been
particularly influential to Francis Bacon, who became an atomist around 1605, though he later rejected some of the
claims of atomism. Though they revived the classical form of atomism, this group was among the scientific avant-
garde: the Northumberland circle contained nearly half of the confirmed Copernicans prior to 1610 (the year of
Galileo's The Starry Messenger). Other influential atomists of late 16th and early 17th centuries include Giordano
Bruno, Thomas Hobbes (who also changed his stance on atomism late in his career), and Thomas Hariot. A
number of different atomistic theories were blossoming in France at this time, as well (Clericuzio 2000).
Galileo Galilei (15641642) was an advocate of atomism in his 1612, Discourse on Floating Bodies (Redondi
1969). In The Assayer, Galileo offered a more complete physical system based on a corpuscular theory of matter,
in which all phenomenawith the exception of soundare produced by "matter in motion". Galileo identified some
basic problems with Aristotelian physics through his experiments. He utilized a theory of atomism as a partial
replacement, but he was never unequivocally committed to it. For example, his experiments with falling bodies and
inclined planes led him to the concepts of circular inertial motion and accelerating free-fall. The current Aristotelian
theories of impetus and terrestrial motion were inadequate to explain these. While atomism did not explain the law
of fall either, it was a more promising framework in which to develop an explanation because motion was
conserved in ancient atomism (unlike Aristotelian physics).
Ren Descartes' (15961650) "mechanical" philosophy of corpuscularism had much in common with atomism, and
is considered, in some senses, to be a different version of it. Descartes thought everything physical in the universe to
be made of tiny vortices of matter. Like the ancient atomists, Descartes claimed that sensations, such as taste or
temperature, are caused by the shape and size of tiny pieces of matter. The main difference between atomism and
Descartes' concept was the existence of the void. For him, there could be no vacuum, and all matter was constantly
swirling to prevent a void as corpuscles moved through other matter. Another key distinction between Descartes'
view and classical atomism is the mind/body duality of Descartes, which allowed for an independent realm of
existence for thought, soul, and most importantly, God. Gassendi's concept was closer to classical atomism, but
with no atheistic overtone.
Pierre Gassendi (15921655) was a Catholic priest from France who was also an avid natural philosopher. He
was particularly intrigued by the Greek atomists, so he set out to "purify" atomism from its heretical and atheistic
philosophical conclusions (Dijksterhius 1969). Gassendi formulated his atomistic conception of mechanical
philosophy partly in response to Descartes; he particularly opposed Descartes' reductionist view that only purely
mechanical explanations of physics are valid, as well as the application of geometry to the whole of physics
(Clericuzio 2000).
Corpuscularianism
16
14/ 01/ 2012
Main article: Corpuscularianism
Corpuscularianism is similar to atomism, except that where atoms were supposed to be indivisible, corpuscles could
in principle be divided. In this manner, for example, it was theorized that mercury could penetrate into metals and
modify their inner structure, a step on the way towards transmutative production of gold. Corpuscularianism was
associated by its leading proponents with the idea that some of the properties that objects appear to have are
artifacts of the perceiving mind: 'secondary' qualities as distinguished from 'primary' qualities.
[22]
Corpuscularianism
stayed a dominant theory over the next several hundred years and was blended with alchemy by those such as
Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton in the 17th century.
[23][24]
It was used by Newton, for instance, in his
development of the corpuscular theory of light. The form that came to be accepted by most English scientists after
Robert Boyle (16271692) was an amalgam of the systems of Descartes and Gassendi. In The Sceptical Chymist
(1661), Boyle demonstrates problems that arise from chemistry, and offers up atomism as a possible explanation.
The unifying principle that would eventually lead to the acceptance of a hybrid corpuscularatomism was
mechanical philosophy, which became widely accepted by physical sciences.
Atomic theor y
Main article: Atomic theory
By the late 18th century, the useful practices of engineering and technology began to influence philosophical
explanations for the composition of matter. Those who speculated on the ultimate nature of matter began to verify
their "thought experiments" with some repeatable demonstrations, when they could.
Roger Boscovich provided the first general mathematical theory of atomism, based on the ideas of Newton and
Leibniz but transforming them so as to provide a programme for atomic physics. Lancelot Law Whyte Essay on
Atomism, 1961, p 54.
In 1808, John Dalton assimilated the known experimental work of many people to summarize the empirical
evidence on the composition of matter. He noticed that distilled water everywhere analyzed to the same elements,
hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly, other purified substances decomposed to the same elements in the same
proportions by weight.
Therefore we may conclude that the ultimate particles of all homogeneous bodies are perfectly alike in weight,
figure, etc. In other words, every particle of water is like every other particle of water; every particle of
hydrogen is like every other particle of hydrogen, etc.
Furthermore, he concluded that there was a unique atom for each element, using Lavoisier's definition of an element
as a substance that could not be analyzed into something simpler. Thus, Dalton concluded the following.
Chemical analysis and synthesis go no farther than to the separation of particles one from another, and to their
reunion. No new creation or destruction of matter is within the reach of chemical agency. We might as well
attempt to introduce a new planet into the solar system, or to annihilate one already in existence, as to create or
destroy a particle of hydrogen. All the changes we can produce, consist in separating particles that are in a state
of cohesion or combination, and joining those that were previously at a distance.
And then he proceeded to give a list of relative weights in the compositions of several common compounds,
summarizing: [2] (http://webserver.lemoyne.edu/faculty/giunta/dalton.html)
17
14/ 01/ 2012
1st. That water is a binary compound of hydrogen and oxygen, and the relative weights of the two elementary
atoms are as 1:7, nearly;
2nd. That ammonia is a binary compound of hydrogen and azote nitrogen, and the relative weights of the two
atoms are as 1:5, nearly...
Dalton concluded that the fixed proportions of elements by weight suggested that the atoms of one element
combined with only a limited number of atoms of the other elements to form the substances that he listed.

18
14/ 01/ 2012
m
12
mZgpsg; gG
19
14/ 01/ 2012
Generattion3+AP11000Reacto
13
ormodel
20
14/ 01/ 2012
14
21
14/ 01/ 2012
4 4
22
14/ 01/ 2012
5 5
GENERAL GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE VVER DESCRIPTION OF THE VVER- -1200/491 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1200/491 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
23
14/ 01/ 2012
21 21
Seismic Loads Seismic Loads
The NPP is designed The NPP is designed
for an earthquake with for an earthquake with
maximum horizontal maximum horizontal
acceleration at a acceleration at a
ground level equal to ground level equal to
0.12g 0.12g
The safety The safety- -related components have related components have
been designed with taking into account been designed with taking into account
the wind load at a wind velocity of 30 the wind load at a wind velocity of 30
m/s at a height of 10 m. In the course of m/s at a height of 10 m. In the course of
further design stages, this load can be further design stages, this load can be
correct, taking into consideration that correct, taking into consideration that
site conditions. It should be mentioned, site conditions. It should be mentioned,
that the determinative wind load is that the determinative wind load is
whirlwind effect. The loads, accepted in whirlwind effect. The loads, accepted in
the design, are loads induced by the design, are loads induced by
whirlwind of Class F3 on the Fujita whirlwind of Class F3 on the Fujita
scale. scale.
The NPP design The NPP design
considers the aspects considers the aspects
of aircraft crash. An of aircraft crash. An
aircraft is equivalent aircraft is equivalent
to a hard missile of 5.7 to a hard missile of 5.7
t in mass, with a speed t in mass, with a speed
of 100 m/s. of 100 m/s.
External Explosion External Explosion
The NPP The NPP safety safety- -related related
components have been components have been
designed to withstand the designed to withstand the
effect of an air shock wave effect of an air shock wave
induced by external induced by external
explosion. Pressure in the explosion. Pressure in the
shock shock- -wave front is wave front is
accepted being equal to accepted being equal to
30 kPa, compression phase 30 kPa, compression phase
duration 1 s. duration 1 s.
Peak (extreme) load due Peak (extreme) load due
to snow is accepted in to snow is accepted in
the design,being equal the design,being equal
to 4.9 kPa. to 4.9 kPa.
24
14/ 01/ 2012
ANKARA, September 2008
8 8
AREVA
The TMI Accident
The TMI Accident
In Spring 1979 occurred at Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania, the most
severe accident which ever happened on a light water reactor.
Mislead by an ambiguous instrumentation,
the operators reacted erroneously
during more than two hours
Rsult :
One third of the core melt
A huge investment unavailable
However No impact
neither on man nor on environment...
This TMI accident showed advances were
necessary in order to avoid
renewal of such occurences.
Consequently many design improvements
took place.
25
14/ 01/ 2012
22 22
AREVA
EPR Safety Improvements
Main Safeguard Systems of the EPR
Melt core
cooling area
Containment heat
dispersion system
Four redundant
safety systems
Double containment with ventilation
and filtration
Water reserves inside the
containment
Melt core
cooling area
Containment heat
dispersion system
Four redundant
safety systems
Double containment with ventilation
and filtration
Water reserves inside the
containment
Spreading Area
Protection of the Basemat
26
14/ 01/ 2012
36 36
AREVA
EPR the FIRST Generation III+ under construction:
Second project site: Flamanville 3
First of the new EDF EPR fleet
Generating power and revenue
by 2012
27
14/ 01/ 2012
35 35
AREVA
EPR in Finland: Olkiluoto 3
28
14/ 01/ 2012
12/19/11 Energ Report - Nuclear Energ
5/20 .indo.state.t.us/specialrpt/energ/nonreneable/nuke.php
Vie. E. hibi. 8-1: P.e. surized Water Reactor, in Text Format.
BWRs have only two loops. Water passes through the reactor core where it boils, creating steam. From the steam generator, a
steam line is directed to a turbine that turns a generator used to produce electricity. The steam passes through a condenser where it
is turned into water and returned to the reactor core, repeating the process. A secondary coolant loop rejects excess heat energy to
the atmosphere. The steam used to turn the turbine comes in contact with the reactor core, making it radioactive (E. hibit 8-2).
E. hibit 8-2
29
14/ 01/ 2012
View Exhibit 8-2: Boiling Water Reactor, in Text Format.
Depending on variables unique to each reactor, fuel assemblies within the reactor core are replaced about every 18 months to
ensure optimum performance.
Ne. t-Generation Reactors
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has certified or is reviewing design certification applications for a new generation
Generation III of nuclear reactors in the U.S. Generation III reactors feature design improvements over Generation II reactors,
which are currently operating in the U.S.
NRC has certified the design of the Westinghouse AP1000, a 1,000 to 1,200 MW (electric) pressurized water reactor. Six utility
companies have selected the AP1000 for 14 reactors to be constructed at seven sites across the U.S.
19
General Electric has received design certification for its advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) design, capable of producing
1,350 to 1,600 MW.
20
NRG Energy has chosen the ABWR design for two new reactors it plans to build at the South Texas
Project in Matagorda County.
21
On September 24, 2007, NRG submitted the first combined Construction and Operating License
Application to NRC for the new reactors. NRG expects both units to be operational by 2015.
22
NRC also has received an application for design certification for General Electric.s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor
(ESBWR). The review process for the ESBWR should be completed by fiscal 2012.
23
NRC received design certification
applications for the Mitsubishi U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) and the Areva Evolutionary Pressurized
Water Reactor (EPR) in December 2007.
24
Other types of reactors include pressurized heavy water reactors, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors, pebble-bed reactors,
sodium-cooled reactors, heavy metal-cooled reactors, supercritical water reactors and molten salt reactors. With the exception of
the heavy water reactor, all are considered to be Generation IV designs that could be ready for commercial deployment by 2030.
30
14/ 01/ 2012
between zero and 211 gallons of water for each million Btu of heat energy produced.
49
Disposal of high-level radioactive waste is the most hotly debated issue between critics and proponents of nuclear power.
Storage and Disposal
High-Level Waste
Disposal of high-level radioactive waste spent reactor fuel is the most hotly debated issue between critics and proponents of
nuclear power. Almost all nuclear experts agree that a permanent geologic repository is the best means to store it.
Two options for handling and storing spent fuel are: reprocessing to extract the remaining energy and separate out fission products,
actinide elements and fissionable material, called a closed-fuel c. cle; or storage and final disposal without reprocessing, called a
once-through fuel c. cle.
The 104 U.S. commercial nuclear reactors produced about 2,400 tons of high-level radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel in
2002 (most recent data available).
50
In all, about 47,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is being held in storage and awaiting final disposal
around the nation, almost all of it on site at nuclear power plants. Ninety percent of the spent fuel is stored underwater in
containment pools, while the remainder is contained in dry casks.
51
E. hibit 8-6
View Exhibit 8-6: Yucca Mountain Storage Facility, in Text Format.
The U.S. nuclear industry uses a once-through fuel cycle. Fuel assemblies are removed from reactor cores after about 18 months
due to a loss of . reactivity,. as a result of the decrease in the number of fissionable atoms in the fuel. The spent fuel assemblies are
roughly 14 feet long and weigh several tons apiece.
In the late 1970s, the U.S. Department of Energy began considering Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a permanent geologic repository
for high-level radioactive waste (E. hibit 8-6). Yucca Mountain is located in a remote, federally-owned section of Nye County,
31
14/ 01/ 2012
Nevada, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
52
The federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the DOE and
NRC to develop Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste. DOE estimates that Yucca Mountain
can begin accepting spent nuclear fuel no earlier than 2017. Before this can happen, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, DOE and NRC must work together to set safety standards and obtain all required licenses for the facility. DOE plans to
submit a license application to NRC by June 30, 2008. This license would allow DOE to begin building the storage facility beneath
Yucca Mountain.
53
Most countries with nuclear programs have begun programs to develop similar sites for geologic repositories. At present, however,
no country has opened a permanent geologic repository.
Lo.w-Level Waste
Nuclear power plants also produce significant amounts of low-level radioactive waste. Low-level waste includes protective clothing
used at nuclear reactors and parts from inside dismantled reactors, among others. The same waste policy act that directs DOE to
take responsibility for the disposal of spent fuel dictates that the states are responsible for disposing of low-level radioactive waste.
Medical facilities also produce low-level radioactive waste.
Many states, including Texas, have joined Congressionally approved compacts that allow them to deposit low-level waste in a single
facility serving the compact member states, without having to accept waste from other states. The Texas Compact currently consists
of Texas and Vermont.
54
Currently, no low-level waste is being stored in Texas as a result of the compact, because no storage
facility exists at this time. In its compact, Texas is the host state meaning that the low-level waste storage site will be located in
Texas. In return, Vermont has agreed to pay Texas $25 million to help with construction costs.
55
Waste Control Specialists, a company based in Andrews County, Texas, has applied to TCEQ for a license to construct a storage
facility for commercial low-level radioactive waste from the compact state, Vermont, as well as DOE.
56
Eight states (Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island), the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico do not belong to any compact, and run the risk either of not being able to dispose of their own
low-level waste or, should they build a facility, having to accept waste from the other states without a compact.
57
Low-level waste is stored on site in special containers. Medical facilities including hospitals, research institutions and industries
store this waste until they have enough to ship to one of three low-level waste facilities in the U.S. These three facilities are located in
Washington, Utah and South Carolina.
58
Reprocessing
Reprocessing spent fuel separates its remaining uranium (U), plutonium (Pu) and higher actinides from fission products, or high-level
waste (HLW) (E. hibit 8-7). The uranium must be . re-enriched. and can be formed into uranium oxide fuel pellets, or combined
with plutonium to form a mixed-oxide fuel that can be used in reactors.
59
E. hibit 8-7
32
14/ 01/ 2012
View Exhibit 8-7: Uranium Reprocessing, in Text Format.
Reprocessing nuclear fuel would extend the availability of nuclear fuel by hundreds of years.
Reprocessing nuclear fuel would extend the availability of nuclear fuel by hundreds of years. It would also greatly reduce the volume
of high-level radioactive waste that must be stored. Spent fuel is regularly reprocessed at facilities in France, the United Kingdom,
Russia and Japan.
60
In the U.S., however, spent fuel reprocessing has been and continues to be controversial. Critics argue that spent fuel reprocessing
increases the world.s supply of plutonium, which could be obtained by countries and terrorist organizations and used to manufacture
nuclear weapons.
Due to concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation, in 1977 President Jimmy Carter decided to indefinitely defer the reprocessing
of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S.
61
The Reagan administration opened the door for the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors, but economic factors,
regulatory issues and potential litigation proved prohibitive to private investment in reprocessing facilities. In July 2007, the Global
33
14/ 01/ 2012
16
34
14/ 01/ 2012
18
35
14/ 01/ 2012
19
36
14/ 01/ 2012
20

37
14/ 01/ 2012
12/27/11 Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repositor - Wikipedia, the free encclopedia
1/14 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repositor
Yucca Mountain
The proposed design
[1]
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste r epositor .
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to be a deep
geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other
high level radioactive waste, until the project was canceled in 2009. It was
to be located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye
County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas
metropolitan area. The proposed repository was within Yucca Mountain, a
ridge line in the south-central part of Nevada near its border with
California.
Although the location has been highly contested by both environmentalists
and non-local residents in Las Vegas, which is over 100 miles (160 km)
away, it was approved in 2002 by the United States Congress. However,
under the Obama Administration
[2]
funding for development of Yucca
Mountain waste site was terminated effective with the 2011 federal budget
passed by Congress on April 14, 2011. The US
GAO stating that the closure was for policy not
technical or safety reasons.
[2]
This leaves United
States civilians without any long term storage site
for high level radioactive waste, currently stored
on-site at various nuclear facilities around the
country, although the United States government
can dispose of its waste at WIPP, in rooms 2,150
feet (660 m) underground.
[3]
The Department of
Energy is reviewing other options for a high level
waste repository. In the meantime, failure to
perform to contractual requirements will cost the taxpayer $11 billion by 2020.
[4]
Contents
1 Background
2 The facility
3 Opposition
4 Radiation standards
4.1 Original standard
4.2 Court of Appeals finds standard inconsistent with NAS recommendations
4.3 EPA's rule
5 Geology
5.1 Earthquakes
6 Transportation of waste
6.1 Nevada routes
6.2 Impacts
7 Cultural impact
8 Cancellation of project
9 See also
Coordinat es: 3651.10. N 11625.36. W 38
14/ 01/ 2012
N. . .. . . W. ste Locations
10 Books
11 ReIerences
12 External links
Backgr ound
Spent nuclear Iuel is the radioactive by-product oI electric power generation at
commercial nuclear power plants, and high-level radioactive waste is the by-
product Irom reprocessing spent Iuel to produce Iissile material Ior nuclear
weapons.
[5]
In 1982, the United States Congress established a national policy to
solve the problem oI nuclear waste disposal. This policy is a Iederal law called
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
[6]
which made the U.S. Department oI Energy
responsible Ior Iinding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal
Iacility called a geologic repository. The recommendation to use a geologic
repository dates back to 1957 when the National Academy oI Sciences
recommended that the best means oI protecting the environment and public
health and saIety would be to dispose oI the waste in rock deep underground.
[7]
The Department oI Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable Ior the
nation's Iirst long-term geologic repository Ior over 70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons; 77,000 short tons) (150 million
pounds) oI spent nuclear Iuel and high-level radioactive waste currently stored at 121 sites around the nation. An estimated
10,000 metric tons (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons) oI the waste would be Irom America's military nuclear
programs.
[8]
On December 19, 1984, the Department oI Energy selected ten locations in six states Ior consideration as
potential repository sites. This was based on data collected Ior nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results oI
these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Ronald Reagan approved three sites
Ior intensive scientiIic study called site characterization. The three sites were HanIord, Washington; DeaI Smith County,
Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only
Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a Iormer nuclear test site. The Act provided that iI during Site
Characterization the Yucca Mountain location is Iound unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. This option expired
when the site was actually recommended by the President. On July 23, 2002, President George W. Bush signed House
Joint Resolution 87,
[9]
(Pub.L. 107-200 (http://www.gpo.gov/Idsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ200/content-detail.html) )
allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a saIe repository in which to store the country's nuclear waste. The
Department oI Energy was to begin accepting spent Iuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998 but did
not do so because oI a series oI delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the
Iacility, and political pressures resulting in underIunding oI the construction.
On July 18, 2006 the DOE proposed March 31, 2017 as the date to open the Iacility and begin accepting waste based on
Iull Iunding. On September 8, 2006 Ward (Edward) Sproat, a nuclear industry executive Iormerly oI PECO energy in
Pennsylvania, was nominated by President Bush to lead the Yucca Mountain Project. Following the 2006 mid-term
Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a long time opponent oI the repository, became the
Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly aIIect the Iuture oI the project. Reid has said that he would
continue to work to block completion oI the project, and is quoted as having said: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never
happen."
[10]
In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million. Despite this cut in
Iunding, the project was able to reallocate resources and delay transportation expenditures to complete the License
Application Ior submission on June 3, 2008. Lacking an operating repository, however, the Iederal government owes to
the utilities somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation Ior Iailing to comply with the contract it
signed to take the spent nuclear Iuel by 1998.
[11]
39
14/ 01/ 2012
A .... .. ... . .. . ring the North
Portal oI Yucca Mountain
The tunnel boring machine on display
at the exit oI the tunnel.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project.
[12]
AIter his
election, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Obama he did not have the ability to do so.
[13]
On April 23, 2009,
Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and eight other senators introduced legislation to provide "rebates" Irom a $30 billion
Iederally managed Iund into which nuclear power plants had been paying, so as to reIund all collected Iunds iI the project
was in Iact cancelled by Congress.
[14]
The facility
The purpose oI the Yucca Mountain project is to comply with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act oI 1982 and develop a national site Ior spent nuclear Iuel and high-level
radioactive waste storage. The management and operating contractor as oI April 1,
2009 Ior the project is USA Repository Services (USA-RS) (a consortium oI
government contractors, URS Corporation, Shaw Corporation and Areva Federal
Services LLC). Following the layoII oI 800 employees on March 31, 2009, the
consortium had about 100 employees remaining on the project prior to all being laid
oII by the end oI the 2010 Iinancial year
[15]
due to zero Iunding in President
Obama's 2011 budget Ior the OIIice oI Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.
[16]
Sandia National Laboratories had the scientiIic responsibility Ior
post closure analysis and ensuring compliance with the NWPA Ior one million
years. The main tunnel oI the Exploratory Studies Facility is U-shaped, 5 mi
(8.0 km) long and 25 It (7.6 m) wide. There are also several cathedral-like alcoves
that branch Irom the main tunnel. It is in these alcoves that most oI the scientiIic
experiments are conducted. The emplacement driIts (smaller diameter tunnels
branching oII the main tunnel) where waste would have been stored were not
constructed since they required a construction authorization by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
[17]
The repository has a statutory limit oI 77,000 metric
tons (85,000 short tons).
[18]
To store this amount oI waste requires 40 miles
(64 km) oI tunnels.
[1]
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Iurther limits the capacity
oI the repository to 63,000 metric tons (62,000 long tons; 69,000 short tons) oI
initial heavy metal in commercial spent Iuel. The 104 U.S. commercial reactors
currently operating will produce this quantity oI spent Iuel by 2014,
[19]
assuming
that the spent Iuel rods are not reprocessed. Currently, the US has no civil
reprocessing plant. By 2008, Yucca Mountain was one oI the most studied
pieces oI geology in the world with the United States having invested US$9
billion on the project.
[20]
The Department oI Energy (DOE) estimates that it has
over 100 million U.S. gallons oI highly radioactive waste and 2,500 metric tons
(2,800 short tons) oI spent Iuel Irom the production oI nuclear weapons and
Irom research activities in temporary storage.
[21]
The cost oI the Iacility is being paid Ior by a combination oI a tax on each
kilowatt hour oI nuclear power and by the taxpayers Ior disposal oI weapons and naval nuclear waste. Based on the 2001
cost estimate, approximately 73 percent is Iunded Irom consumers oI nuclear powered electricity and 27 percent by the
taxpayers.
[22]
The latest Total System LiIe Cycle Cost presented to Congress on July 15, 2008 by Director Sproat is $90
billion. This cost, however, cannot be compared to previous estimates since it includes a repository capacity about twice
as large as previously estimated over a much longer period oI time (100 years vs 30 years). Additionally, the cost oI the
project continues to escalate due to the lack oI suIIicient Iunding to most eIIiciently move Iorward and complete the
project. In 2007, the DOE announced it was seeking to double the size oI the Yucca Mountain repository to a capacity oI
135,000 metric tons (149,000 short tons), or 300 million pounds.
[23]
The tunnel boring machine (TBM) that excavated the main tunnel cost $13 million and was 400 It (120 m) in length when
in operation. It now sits at its exit point at the South Portal (south entrance) oI the Iacility. The short side tunnel alcoves
40
14/ 01/ 2012
Map . ho. ing .he loca.ion of Y. cca Mo. n.ain in ohen Neada, o he e of he
Neada Te Sie
ee ecaaed ing eploie.
[24]
Oppo. i. ion
The U.S. Depamen of Eneg
a o begin acceping pen fel
a he Ycca Monain epoio
b Jana 31, 1998. Hoee,
12 ea afe hi deadline, he
epoio a Ycca Monain i
ill oe a decade aa fom
being opened, and he opening
dae conine o be delaed.
[25]
Becae of dela in concion,
a nmbe of nclea poe plan
in he Unied Sae hae eoed
o d cak oage of ae on-
ie indefiniel in neal
impeio eel and concee
cak.
[26]
To keep hee plan
opeaing, i ma be necea o
conc a empoa facili a
he Ycca Monain ie o
omehee ele in he We if opening of he ndegond oage conine o be delaed.
The pojec i idel oppoed in Neada and i a hol debaed naional opic. A o-hid majoi of Neadan feel i
i nfai fo hei ae o hae o oe nclea ae hen hee ae no nclea poe plan in Neada.
[27]
Man
Neadan' oppoiion emmed fom he o-called "Sce Neada Bill," he 1987 legilaion haling d of Hanfod and
Tea a poenial ie fo he ae befoe conclion cold be me.
[27]
Hoee, he local con in hich he
popoed facili i locaed, Ne Con, ppo he deelopmen of he epoio.
In addiion, he Neada Te Sie (NTS), hich bode Ycca Monain o he ea, i he locaion hee oe 1000
nclea eapon hae been deonaed and conine o fncion a he locaion fo nclea eapon eing. The NTS
cenl ho a aie of eeach aciiie, boh nclea and oheie, and i he ho o o lo-leel adioacie
ae ie.
One poin of concen ha been he andad of adiaion emiion fom 10,000 ea o 1,000,000 ea ino he fe.
On Ag 9, 2005, he Unied Sae Enionmenal Poecion Agenc popoed a limi of 350 milliem pe ea fo ha
peiod.
[28]
In Ocobe 2007, he DOE ied a daf of he Spplemenal Enionmenal Impac Saemen in hich i
ho ha fo he fi 10,000 ea mean pblic doe old be 0.24 mem/ea and ha heeafe o 1,000,000 ea
he median pblic doe old be 0.98 mem/ea, boh of hich ae baniall belo he popoed EPA limi.
[29]
On Feba 12, 2002, U.S. Secea of Eneg Spence Abaham made he deciion ha hi ie a iable o be he
naion' nclea epoio.
[30]
The goeno of Neada had 90 da o objec and did o. Hoee, he Unied Sae
Conge oeode he objecion. If he goeno' objecion had ood he pojec old hae been abandoned and a
ne ie choen. In Ag 2004, he epoio became an elecion ie, hen Senao John Ke aid ha he old
abandon he plan if eleced.
In Mach 2005, he Eneg and Ineio depamen eealed ha eeal U.S. Geological Se hdologi had
41
14/ 01/ 2012
exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research.
[31]
On
February 17, 2006, the Department of Energy.s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) released a
report confirming the technical soundness of infiltration modeling work performed by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
employees.
[31]
In March 2006, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a 25
page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet." The conclusions were:
[31]
Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal
The cost of not moving forward is extremely high
Nuclear waste disposal capability is an environmental imperative
Nuclear waste disposal capability supports national security
Demand for new nuclear plants also demands disposal capability
On January 18, 2006, DOE OCRWM announced that it would designate Sandia National Laboratories as its lead
laboratory to integrate repository science work for the Yucca Mountain Project. "We believe that establishing Sandia as
our lead laboratory is an important step in our new path forward. The independent, expert review that the scientists at
Sandia will perform will help ensure that the technical and scientific basis for the Yucca Mountain repository is without
question," OCRWM.s Acting Director Paul Golan said. "Sandia has unique experience in managing scientific investigations
in support of a federally licensed geologic disposal facility, having served in that role as the scientific advisor to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico."
[32]
Sandia began acting as the lead laboratory on October 1, 2006.
Because of questions raised by the State of Nevada
[33]
and Congressional members about the quality of the science
behind Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy announced on March 31, 2006 the selection of Oak Ridge Associated
Universities/Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (a not-for-profit consortium that includes 96 doctoral degree-
granting institutions and 11 associate member universities) to provide expert reviews of scientific and technical work on the
Yucca Mountain Project.
[34]
DOE stated that the Yucca Mountain Project "will be based on sound science. By bringing in
Oak Ridge for review of technical work, DOE will seek to present a high level of expertise and credibility as they move the
project forward... This award gives DOE access to academic and research institutions to help DOE meet their mission and
legal obligation to license, construct, and open Yucca Mountain as the nation.s repository for spent nuclear fuel."
[35]
There was significant public and political opposition to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project in Nevada.
An attempt was made to push ahead with the project and override this opposition. But for large projects which would take
decades to complete, there is every chance that sustained local opposition will prevail, and this happened with the Yucca
Mountain project.
[36]
Successful nuclear waste storage siting efforts in Scandinavia have involved local communities in the
decision-making process and given them a veto at each stage, but this did not happen with Yucca Mountain. Local
communities at potential storage and repository sites "should have early and continued involvement in the process, including
funding that would allow them to retain technical experts".
[36]
On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu reiterated in a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site was no
longer considered an option for storing reactor waste.
[37]
On March 3, 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw its license application,
[38]
however multiple
lawsuits to stop this action have been filed by states, counties, and individuals across the country as being unauthorized by
the NWPA.
[39][40]
Radiation Standards
O. iginal . .andad
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001.
[41]
42
14/ 01/ 2012
Looking west atop Yucca Mountain
The storage standard set a dose limit of 15 millirem per year for the public outside the Yucca Mountain site. The disposal
standards consisted of three components: an individual dose standard, a standard evaluating the impacts of human intrusion
into the repository, and a groundwater protection standard. The individual-protection and human intrusion standards set a
limit of 15 millirem per year to a reasonably maximally exposed individual, who would be among the most highly exposed
members of the public. The groundwater protection standard is consistent with EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act standards,
which the Agency applies in many situations as a pollution prevention measure. The disposal standards were to apply for a
period of 10,000 years after the facility is closed. Dose assessments were to continue beyond 10,000 years and be placed
in DOE's Environmental Impact Statement, but were not subject to a compliance standard. The 10,000 year period for
compliance assessment is consistent with EPA's generally applicable standards developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act. It also reflects international guidance regarding the level of confidence that can be placed in numerical projections over
very long periods of time.
[42]
Court of Appeals finds standard inconsistent with NAS recommendations
Shortly after the EPA first established these standards in 2001, the nuclear industry, several environmental and public
interest groups, and the State of Nevada challenged the standards in court. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found in favor of the Agency on all counts except one: the 10,000 year regulatory time frame.
The court ruled that EPA.s 10,000-year compliance period for isolation of radioactive waste was not consistent with
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short.
[43][44]
The NAS report had recommended
standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years.
[45]
By limiting the
compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with
NAS recommendations.
[46]
EPA' s rule
EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule in 2009. The new rule limits radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up
to 1,000,000 years after it closes. Within that regulatory time frame, the EPA has two dose standards that would apply
based on the number of years from the time the facility is closed.
For the first 10,000 years, the EPA would retain the 2001 final rule.s dose limit of 15 millirem per year. This is protection
at the level of the most stringent radiation regulations in the U.S. today. From 10,000 to one million years, EPA established
a dose limit of 100 millirem per year. EPA's rule requires the Department of Energy to show that Yucca Mountain can
safely contain wastes, considering the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity, climate change, and container corrosion,
over one million years. The current analysis indicates that the repository will cause less than 1 mrem/year public dose
through 1,000,000 years.
Geology.
Main article: Yucca Mountain
The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large
eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of
ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. The tuff
surround the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a
natural barrier to the radiation.
[47]
It lies along the transition between the
Mohave and the Great Basin Deserts.
[48]
The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of
water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through
fractures.
[49]
While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff,
43
14/ 01/ 2012
Proposed Transportation Route of
SNF through Nevada
the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table
600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface.
[50]
Future water transport
from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures.
There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the
700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in
less than 50 years.
[51][52]
Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the
waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive
waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface.
[53]
Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to
minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility.
The area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently
much higher than it is today, though well below the level of the repository.
Earthquakes
Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity
[54]
Earthquake databases (the Council of the National
Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical
earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic
events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported underground nuclear
weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.
[54]
DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect
repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are
too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table
caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and
faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground
motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed
significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will
reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste form from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.
[55]
In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of
where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be
cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred
feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the
movement of the structures . just-in-time engineering..
[56][57]
In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec
International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are
buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear
waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling
juggernauts".
[58]
Tr anspor tation of waste
The nuclear waste is planned to be shipped to the site by rail and/or truck in robust containers known as spent nuclear fuel
shipping casks, approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While the routes in Nevada will be public, in the other
states the planned routes, dates and times of transport will be secret for security reasons. State or tribal representatives will
be notified before shipments of spent nuclear fuel enter their jurisdictions.
[59]
44
14/ 01/ 2012
Ne. ada . o. .e.
Within Nevada, the planned primary mode of transportation is via rail through the Caliente Corridor. This corridor starts in
Caliente, Nevada, traveling along the western and northern borders of Nevada for approximately 200 miles (320 km). At
this point, it turns south.
[60]
Other options that are being considered include a rail route along the Mina corridor. This rail route would originate at the
Fort Churchill Siding rail line, near Wabuska. The proposed corridor would proceed southeast through Hawthorne, Blair
Junction, Lida Junction and Oasis Valley. At Oasis Valley, the rail line would turn north-northeast towards Yucca
Mountain. Use of this rail corridor by the Department of Energy would require permission from the Walker River Paiute
Tribe in order to cross their land. As the first 54 miles (87 km) of the proposed corridor is owned by the Department of
Defense, additional permission from the DoD would have to be granted.
[61]
Impac.
Since the early 1960s, the U.S. has safely conducted more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel without any harmful
release of radioactive material. This safety record is comparable to the worldwide experience where more than 70,000
metric tons of spent nuclear fuel have been transported since 1970 an amount approximately equal to the total amount
of spent nuclear fuel that would be shipped to Yucca Mountain.
[59]
However, cities are still concerned about the transport
of radioactive waste on highways and railroads that may pass through heavily populated areas. Dr. Robert Halstead, who
has been a transportation adviser to the state of Nevada since 1988, stated regarding transportation of the high level
waste, "They would heavily affect cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, in the Chicago metropolitan area, in Omaha."
"Coming out of the south, the heaviest impacts would be in Atlanta, in Nashville, St. Louis, Kansas City, moving across
through Salt Lake City, through downtown Las Vegas, up to Yucca Mountain. And the same cities would be affected by
rail shipments as well." Spencer Abraham (DOE) on the other hand has stated, "I think there.s a general understanding that
we move hazardous materials in this country, an understanding that the federal government knows how to do it safely."
[62]
Clal impac
Archaeological surveys have found evidence that Native Americans used the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain on a
temporary or seasonal basis (Stoffle e. al. 1990, p. 29). Some Native Americans disagree with the conclusions of
archaeological investigators that their ancestors were highly mobile groups of hunter-gatherers who occupied the Yucca
Mountain area before Euroamericans began using the area for prospecting, surveying, and ranching. They believe that
these conclusions overlook traditional accounts of farming that occurred before European contact.
[63]
Yucca Mountain and surrounding lands were central in the lives of the Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens
Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples, who shared them for religious ceremonies, resource uses, and social events.
[64][65]
Cancellaion of pojec
In May 2009, Secretary Steven Chu stated:
"Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We
realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask
storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do
for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at
reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived
actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion
fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn
down the long-lived actinides. ...
45
14/ 01/ 2012
"Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think
of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine. again, it depends on what the blue-
ribbon panel says. one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you
don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain,
such as salt domes. Once you put it in there, the salt oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to
100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to
it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore. that's good. It's
a very natural containment. ...whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value,
let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come
back to it and want to recover that.
"So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the
interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing
what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas."
[66]
In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 (Roll call vote 591
(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll591.xml) , via Clerk.House.gov) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the
FY2010 budget.
[25][67]
See al. o
Anti-nuclear movement in the United States
Bullfrog County, Nevada
Gudmundur S. (Bo) Bodvarsson
High-level radioactive waste management
List of nuclear waste treatment technologies
Nuclear semiotics
Yucca Mountain Johnny, a controversial cartoon character used to promote the Yucca Mountain Project to
children
Book.
Macfarlane, Allison M. and Ewing, Rodney C., editors, Uncertaint. Underground: Yucca Mountain and the
Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste MIT Press, 2006. Set of articles by technical experts on numerous
scientific and technical issues that are unresolved; presents arguments that Yucca Mountain has not been and
may never be shown to be an appropriate repository for high-level radioactive waste. Does not pass judgment
on suitability of the site.
The book About A Mountain by John D'Agata focuses on the mountain as well as the city of Las Vegas.
Refe. ence.
1. ^
a

b
"Nuclear waste repository safe for future generations"
(http://www.lanl.gov/1663/yucca_mountain_complies_with_epa_regulations_for_safety_and_risk) . 1663 LANL Sci/Tech
Magani. e. December 2008.
http://www.lanl.gov/1663/yucca_mountain_complies_with_epa_regulations_for_safety_and_risk. Retrieved 19 September
2010.
2. ^
a

b
"GAO: Death of Yucca Mountain Caused by Political Maneuvering"
(http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?
pagewanted=all) . New York Times. May 9, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-
46
14/ 01/ 2012
Draft Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission 9 July 2011
3. TECHNICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Overview of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
The nuclear fuel cycle is the series of industrial processes used to produce electricity from uranium in a
nuclear reactor (figure 1). The fuel cycle can be described as having three major parts: the front end
where uranium is mined and processed into fuel for use in a nuclear reactor; the use of that fuel in a
reactor; and the back end where the spent fuel is first stored and ultimately sent for disposal or
reprocessing (if the spent fuel is reprocessed, remaining wastes would still require disposal).
The Commission was charged with recommending a new policy for the back-end of the nuclear fuel
cycle in the United States. We begin by reviewing the major elements of the fuel cycle with the aim of
providing basic context for the
discussion and recommendations
found in later chapters of this report.
Uranium enrichment: The
nuclear fuel cycle begins with
the mining of uranium, which
provides the basic fissile
material or fuel for nearly
all nuclear reactors. Mined
uranium consists almost
entirely of two isotopes or
types of uranium atoms,
5

mostly uranium-238
(99.3 percent) together with
a much smaller fraction
(0.7 percent) of the
fissionable isotope uranium-
235 or U-235. In its natural
state, mined uranium is only weakly radioactivemeaning that it can be handled without the
need for radiation shielding. Before it can be used in a commercial reactor, mined uranium must
be purified and enriched to boost the amount of fissionable U-235 present in the fuel. Most of
the commercial nuclear power plants in operation today are light-water reactors that require fuel
enriched to a U-235 concentration of anywhere from 3 to 5 percent
6
a typical figure for fuel
used in commercial U.S. reactors is 4 percent. Techniques for enriching uranium are well
developed, with the most prominent methods involving gaseous diffusion or centrifuge
technology.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/images/intro_fig1.jpg
Figure 1. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

47
14/ 01/ 2012
Figure 3. Wet Pool Storage
Use as reactor fuel: Enriched uranium oxide is cast into hard
pellets and stacked inside long metal tubes or cladding to
form fuel rods (figure 2). The fuel rods are bundled into fuel
assemblies (each assembly is about 12 to 14 feet long). The
core of a typical light-water commercial nuclear power reactor
in the United States contains anywhere from 200 to 500 fuel
assemblies, totaling approximately 100 metric tons of uranium
oxide. Inside the reactor, the enriched uranium sustains a
series of controlled nuclear reactions that collectively liberate
substantial quantities of energy. The energy is converted to
steam and used to drive turbines that generate electricity.
Meanwhile, the fission process inside the reactor creates new
elements or fission products, and gives rise to some heavier
elements, collectively known as transuranics, which may
take part in further reactions (among the most important
is plutonium-239).
Wet (pool) storage Nuclear fuel will remain in a commercial power reactor for about four to
six years, after which it can no longer efficiently produce energy and is considered used or
spent. The spent fuel that has been removed from a reactor is thermally hot and emits a great
deal of radiation; upon removal from the reactor, each spent fuel assembly emits enough to
deliver a fatal radiation dose in minutes to someone in the immediate vicinity who is not
adequately shielded. To keep the fuel cool and to protect workers from the radiation, the spent
fuel is transferred to a deep, water-filled pool where it is placed in a metal rack. Typically, spent
fuel is kept in the pool for at least five years, although spent fuel at many U.S. reactor sites has
been in pool storage for several decades (figure 3). Approximately 50,000 metric tons of
commercial spent fuel are currently stored in pools in the United States.
Dry (cask) storage After the fuel
has cooled sufficiently in wet
storage, it may be transferred to
dry storage. Dry storage systems
take many forms but generally
consist of a fuel storage grid placed
within a steel inner container and a
concrete and steel outer container
(figure 4). The amount of
commercial spent fuel stored in
dry casks in the United States
totals about 15,000 metric tons.
http://www.solarcellcentral.com/nuclear_page.html
Figure 2. Fuel Assembly
48
14/ 01/ 2012
Image from NRC web site
Figure 4. Dry Storage System
Image from NRC web site
Figure 5. Shipping Container for Spent Fuel
Transportation Because of the residual hazard it
poses, spent fuel must be shipped in containers or casks
(figure 5) that shield and contain the radioactivity and
dissipate the heat. In the United States, spent fuel has
typically been transported via truck or rail; other
nations also use ships for spent fuel transport.
7

Reprocessing or recycling Even after commercial fuel
is considered spent, it still contains unused uranium
along with other re-usable elements (primarily
plutonium which is generated within the fuel while it is
in the reactor) and fission products (elements produced
by the fissioning of uranium and plutonium in the
reactor core). Current reprocessing technologies
separate the spent fuel into three components:
uranium; plutonium (or a plutonium-uranium mix); and
waste, which contains fission products and so-called
transuranic elements that are produced within the fuel.
The plutonium is mixed with uranium and fabricated into new fuel while the fission products
and other waste elements are packaged into a new form for disposal (the uranium can also be
re-used to make new fuel but because recovered uranium is more difficult to use than freshly
mined uranium, this has only been done to a limited extent). Coupled with new reactor types,
future reprocessing technologies could, if they can be successfully developed and deployed,
allow for a greater fraction of the material in spent fuel to be recovered and re-used.
49
14/ 01/ 2012
Disposal Regardless of whether spent fuel is reprocessed or directly disposed of, every
foreseeable approach to the nuclear fuel cycle still requires a means of disposal that assures the
very long-term isolation of radioactive wastes from the environment.
8
Many nations, including
those engaged in reprocessing, are working to develop permanent disposal facilities for spent
fuel and/or HLW, but no such facility has yet been put into operation. Every nation that is
developing permanent disposal capacity plans to use a deep, mined geologic repository for this
purpose. Other disposal options (i.e., deep boreholes) have been considered and may hold
promise in the long-term but are at a much earlier stage of development.
3.2 The Nature and Longevity of Hazard Posed by Different Types of Nuclear
Waste
Spent nuclear fuel and HLW are hazardous if not properly managed and controlled, primarily as a result
of the radiation emitted by the radioactive decay of unstable elements in the fuel. Spent fuel emits high
levels of radiation and thus requires shielding to be handled safely. In wet storage, shielding is provided
by a large volume of water in a storage pool. In dry storage configurations, shielding is primarily
provided by thick layers of steel and concrete.
The other major hazard from spent fuel arises if its radioactive constituents are mobilized into air or
water. There is no risk of this occurring as long as fuel assemblies are intact: the fuel is encased in metal
tubes or cladding; the tubes in turn are configured in bundles that are designed to withstand four to
six years of exposure to very high temperatures and high levels of radiation in a reactor core (figure 6).
But during the initial period after fuel is removed from a reactor core, the rapid decay of short-lived
radioactive material generates sufficient heat that overheating has the potential to damage the fuel
cladding and release radioactive material if sufficient cooling is not provided. Over the very long time
periods associated with geologic disposal, by contrast, the concern is that gradual corrosion processes
may allow for radioactive material to be mobilized in ground water and migrate out of an engineered
disposal facility.

Figure 6. Composition of Spent Nuclear Fuel (standard PWR 33 GW/t, after 10 years of cooling)
9

50
14/ 01/ 2012
Source: BRC staff using information from various sources
13

Note: Risk depends on both the total dose and how quickly it was received.
Figure 7. Comparison of Radiation Doses
51
14/ 01/ 2012

Figure 8. Radioactive Decay of Typical Spent Fuel

Source http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html.
Figure 9. Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors in the United States
52
14/ 01/ 2012
Several nations continue to extract plutonium (and uranium) from spent fuel for planned re-use, but as
uranium has been found to be more naturally abundant than first expected, many nations are now
primarily focused on developing options for the near-term safe storage of HLW and spent fuel and for
the long-term isolation of these materials from people and the environment.
The United States may someday find it advantageous to extract useful elements from spent fuel for re-
use (later chapters of this report discuss the value of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
to ensure that future generations have a wide range of nuclear fuel cycle options to choose from). In
the nearer term, laws in several states that put a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction until
certain waste management conditions have been met, together with the NRCs Waste Confidence
rulemaking, which was first initiated in October 1979, create the most direct linkage between progress
on nuclear waste disposal and the future prospects of the domestic nuclear power industry.
3.7.1 State Moratoria
Efforts to establish a formal legal link between the use of nuclear power and solutions for the back end
of the nuclear fuel cycle began in California in the mid-1970s when it became clear that the prospects
for successfully completing either reprocessing capacity or a permanent waste disposal system were
increasingly dim.
25
At that time, the California legislature adopted a law that allows the state to grant
permits for new nuclear power plants only if the California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission can make a finding that the federal government has identified and approved
a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel/high-level nuclear waste. The
California law was challenged on grounds that federal law preempts state statutes concerning nuclear
power, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court, which found that California had acted on the basis of an
economic rather than nuclear regulatory rationale.
Subsequently, eight other states adopted statutes that tied approval of new reactors to (at a minimum)
progress on the issue of waste disposal.
26
Recent years have seen efforts to repeal those laws in some
states, although none have succeeded so far.
3.7.2 NRC Waste Confidence Proceeding
The NRCs Waste Confidence proceeding grew out of an NRC statement that, as a matter of policy, it
would not continue to license reactors if it did not have reasonable confidence that the wastes can and
will in due course be disposed of safely.
27
While the Waste Confidence Rule is narrowly applied so that
waste management and disposal issues dont have to be re-litigated every time the NRC reviews a
license application, the NRC itself has indicated that this proceeding has broader policy implications.
The NRCs first waste confidence decision was issued in 1984. In it, the NRC found reasonable assurance
that safe disposal of HLW and spent fuel in a geologic repository is technically feasible, and that
repository capacity would become available in the 20072009 timeframe.
28
The NRC also found that
HLW and spent fuel will be safely managed until repository capacity is available, that spent fuel
generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for
extended periods, and that spent fuel storage will be available as needed.
53
14/ 01/ 2012
4. THE NEED FOR GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL
The Commission was asked to recommend a better strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear
fuel cycle in the United States. We have concluded that the central flaw or gap in the U.S. program to
date has been its failure, despite decades of effort, to develop a permanent disposal capability as
required by the NWPA. Lack of disposal capability is not only at the heart of the U.S. governments
inability to honor its waste management obligations to date, it isespecially after Fukushimaa source
of renewed concern to the general public, a growing liability to taxpayers, and a burden to nuclear
utilities, their ratepayers,
33
and the nuclear energy industrys prospects going forward. Our first
recommendation, therefore, is that the United States must proceed promptly to develop one or more
permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
This chapter discusses the ethical, technical, and practical grounding for that recommendation and
elaborates on the options available for developing permanent disposal capacity.
4.1 The Rationale for Developing Permanent Disposal Capacity
Spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes
34
contain elements that present a potentially
significant radiation hazard to exposed populations and ecosystems. These hazards diminish over time,
often declining significantly in the first few hundred years and thereafter much more gradually. As
detailed in chapter 3 of this report, the decay processes for some constituents of spent fuel and HLW
take hundreds of thousands of years or more. Therefore, the central challenge for managing these
materials is to store and finally dispose of them in a way that provides adequate protection of the public
and the environment over very long periods of time.
The need for a permanent disposal solution is quite clear in the case of nuclear materials with a low
probability of re-usea category that includes defense and commercial reprocessing wastes and many
forms of spent fuel currently in government hands. From a practical standpoint, the Commission
believes it is also very likely that permanent disposal will be needed to safely manage at least some
portion of the existing commercial SNF inventory. This is because there is no cost-effective way using
existing technology to separate the most hazardous and long-lived radioactive elements in spent fuel
and convert them to short-lived or stable isotopes.
35
In the meantime, the more frequently discussed
option is to re-cycle and re-use some of the constituents of spent fuel. This option involves reprocessing
spent fuel to separate and remove the still usable constituents for re-use as reactor fuel. Options for
partially or fully closing the nuclear fuel cycle are the subject of ongoing research and development in
the United States and elsewhere and are discussed in chapter 10 of this report. The central point is that
all of the spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options either already available or under active development
at this time still generate waste streams. Moreover, these waste streams contain sufficient amounts of
long-lived radioactive elements that the need for a long-term disposal solution cannot be eliminated
with any foreseeable separations technology.
36

54
14/ 01/ 2012
In concluding that permanent disposal capacity will be needed, the Commission is echoing the
consensus view, not only of numerous former expert panels
37
that have looked at the situation in the
United States but also of all countries with significant nuclear waste inventories (including those that are
currently conducting recycle or reprocessing fuel cycles) and of major international organizations such
as the IAEA.
38,39

4.2 The Case for Disposal
The ethical case for developing permanent disposal capacity for spent fuel and high-level nuclear wastes
from the nations past weapons programs and civilian nuclear power industry is outlined in section 2.3.1
of this report, which highlights the obligation to avoid placing an undue burden on future generations.
From a legal standpoint, the U.S. governments general obligation to provide a timely, permanent
disposal solution has been established for more than three decades. In fact, under current law the
federal government was obliged to begin accepting commercial spent fuel by January 31, 1998.
Apart from commercial spent fuel, the federal government is also liable for the eventual disposition of
waste from defense production facilities. Enforceable commitments to remove federally owned waste
have been made in cleanup agreements with the host states of Washington, South Carolina, and Idaho.
Direct disposal of both defense HLW and the West Valley HLW at an appropriate site (without interim
storage at another location) should be pursued, as this material will never be reprocessed or re-used.
Finally, although much of the federally-owned HLW and spent fuel was generated to produce materials
used in nuclear weapons, a smaller inventory of spent fuel exists and is being generated by the U.S.
Navys nuclear fleet. Continued Navy operations to examine and store this fuel in Idaho depend upon
the future availability of disposal capacity at a suitable repository site for this fuel.
As we have already noted, the Commissions central conclusion concerning the need for disposal
capability is consistent with decades of expert opinion and policy consensus in the United States and
abroad. That the use of nuclear technologieswhether for defense purposes or for energy
productionwould necessitate a means for permanently disposing of their radioactive by-products has
been known from the beginning. In short, because these materials exist, the ethical, legal, and practical
obligation to dispose of them also exists. Regardless how one views the nuclear energy industry or its
future prospects, all parties should be able to agree that there is little to be gainedand potentially a
very high price to be paidfor continued deferral and delay in developing the capability for permanent
disposal. Moreover, only by moving forward can some of the key questions and uncertainties about a
future disposal path for spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste be identified and resolved.
4.3 Options for Permanent Disposal
While several options for disposing of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste have been considered in the
United States and elsewhere, international scientific consensus clearly endorses the conclusion that deep
geological disposal is the most promising and accepted method currently available for safely isolating
spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes from the environment for very long periods of time.
55
14/ 01/ 2012
In its deliberations, the Commission
focused chiefly on two deep geologic
disposal options: disposal in a mined
geological formation and disposal in
deep boreholes. The former has
been the front-running disposal
strategy in the United States for
more than 50 years; it is also the
approach being taken in other
countries with spent fuel or HLW
disposal programs. (An artist's
rendering of the mined geologic
disposal concept is shown in figure
12.) By contrast, disposal in deep
boreholes may hold promise but this
option is less well understood and
the development of an appropriate
safety standard, along with further
RD&D is needed to fully assess its
potential advantages and
disadvantages.
In a mined geologic repository,
wastes would be placed in engineered
arrays in conventionally mined cavities
deep beneath the earth's surface. The waste itself would be contained in canisters or other packages
appropriate to its particular form, chemical content, and radiation intensity. As developed and studied
around the world, proposals for geologic disposal also employ the concept of multiple barriers.
40
These
include both engineered and geologic barriers that improve confidence that radioactive constituents will
not return to the biosphere in biologically significant concentrations. Engineered barriers include the
waste form itself, canisters, fillers, overpacking, sleeves, shaft and tunnel seals, and backfill materials.
Each of these components may be designed to reduce the likelihood that radioactive material would be
released and would be selected on the basis of site- and waste-specific considerations. Geologic barriers
include the repository host rock and adjacent and overlying rock formations. While engineered barriers
would be tailored to a specific containment need, geologic barriers would be chosen for their in-situ
properties with respect to both waste containment and isolation.
The basic objective or standard of performance for a permanent waste repository was articulated by the
IAEA in a 2003 report on the scientific and technical basis for geologic disposal of radioactive wastes: to
provide sufficient isolation, both from human activity and from dynamic natural processes, that eventual
releases of radionuclides will be in such low concentrations that they do not pose a hazard to human
health and the natural environment.
41

Figure 12. Mined Geologic Disposal Concept
56
14/ 01/ 2012

Decades of research and site investigations in the United States and elsewhere suggest that a wide
variety of rock types and geologic environments couldin combination with appropriate repository
designbe suitable for achieving this objective. The rock types that have been considered for a deep
geologic repository have included bedded and domed rock salts, crystalline rocks (i.e., granite or gneiss),
clay, shale, volcanic tuffs, basalt, and various other types of sedimentary rocks.
42

Each of these rock types and their particular geologic environments have advantages and disadvantages
from a strictly technical perspective, and different geologic settings and emplacement methods may be
better for particular types of waste. However, many or all of them may ultimately be found to
demonstrate acceptable performance for a wide range of wastes. The geologic environment into which
waste would be emplaced is a related and perhaps more important consideration than the type of rock
by itself. The BRC has benefitted from visits to several facilities in different geologic settings in the
United States and abroad. This exposure contributes to our collective observation that deep geologic
disposal constitutes a vital element of all international waste management programs. It also reinforces
our confidence that many geologic formations and sites that would be technically suitable for hosting a
permanent repository can be found within the borders of the United States.
43

Deep boreholes represent another form of deep geologic disposal that may offer benefits, particularly
for the disposal of certain forms of waste. As we have already noted, however, this concept is less well
understood than disposal in a mined repository and requires further exploration.
44
Basically, a deep
borehole is a cased hole on the order of 45 centimeters (approximately 20 inches) in diameter drilled
into crystalline basement rock to a depth of 4 to 5 kilometers (2.5 to 3 miles). In most designs, the
bottom 1 to 2 kilometers would be filled with either vitrified HLW or spent fuel and some backfill or
sealant would be added to fill in the gaps between the wastes and the well casing. Figure 13 illustrates
the deep boreholes disposal concept.
Other Disposal Concepts
A number of alternative disposal concepts or alternative types of sites for geologic disposal have been
advanced over the years. For example, disposal on or beneath unoccupied islands has been considered
in the context of options for siting an international repository or monitored storage facility.
45
Another
option, sub-seabed disposal in stable clay sediments, was investigated in the 1970s and 1980s and was
thought by a number of experts to hold potential advantages over land-based disposal. Other disposal
concepts that have been proposed, at least for some forms of waste, include disposal by in situ melting
(this has been suggested as a way to dispose of liquid wastes from reprocessing, perhaps by using
already contaminated underground nuclear test cavities) or space disposalthat is, shooting nuclear
wastes into solar orbit or even into the sun. For reasons of practicality, public and international
acceptance, and/or cost these options have generally not received as much attention as disposal in a
deep, land-based, mined geologic repository. In sum, based on the evidence available to date, the
Commission sees no reason to change the current focus of the U.S. program on developing mined
geologic repositories.
57
14/ 01/ 2012

Figure 13. Deep Borehole Disposal Concept
46

A number of possible advantages have been cited that support further efforts to investigate the deep
borehole option. These include the potential to achieve (compared to mined geologic repositories)
reduced mobility of radionuclides and greater isolation of waste, greater tolerance for waste heat
generation, modularity and flexibility in terms of expanding disposal capacity, and compatibility with a
larger number and variety of possible sites. On the other hand, deep boreholes may also have some
disadvantages in terms of the difficulty and cost of retrieving waste (if retrievability is desired) after a
borehole is sealed, relatively high costs per volume of waste capacity, and constraints on the form or
packaging of the waste to be emplaced.
Overall, the Commission recommends further RD&D to help resolve some of the current uncertainties
about deep borehole disposal and to allow for a more comprehensive (and conclusive) evaluation of the
potential practicality of licensing and deploying this approach, particularly as a disposal alternative for
certain forms of waste that have essentially no potential for re-use.
47
In addition, EPA and NRC should
initiate an effort to develop a regulatory framework for borehole disposal, in parallel with their
development of a site-independent safety standard for mined geologic repositories.
4.4 Retrievability and Reversibility
The concepts of retrievability and reversibility have long been part of the discussion about how best to
safely dispose of highly radioactive materials. While no standardized definition exists for either term,
reversibility means the more generic ability to reconsider and reverse course at any time during the
development and implementation of a geologic disposal program. By contrast, retrievability refers more
specifically to the ability to retrieve waste after it that has already been emplaced underground in a
58
14/ 01/ 2012
5.1 The Role of Interim Storage
Storage in some form, for some period of time, is an inevitable part of the nuclear fuel cycle. This is
simply because spent fuel, upon being removed from the reactor core, needs to be allowed to cool
before it can be handled further. In the early days of the nuclear energy industry it was assumed that
storage times for spent fuel would be relatively shorton the order of several years to a decade or two
at most before spent fuel would be sent either for reprocessing or final disposal. The current reality, of
course, is much different. Interim storage is not only playing a more prominent and protracted role in
the nuclear fuel cycle than once expected, it is the only element of the back end of the fuel cycle that is
currently being deployed on an operational scale in the United States. In fact, much larger quantities of
spent fuel are being stored for much longer periods of time than policymakers envisioned or utility
companies planned for when most of the current fleet of reactors were built.
Chapter 3 of this report describes how the current situationin which the vast majority of spent fuel is
still being stored at the reactor sites where it was generatedarose by default as the U.S. Government
first decided not to pursue reprocessing and then fell further and further behind in developing a
permanent disposal repository. With DOE in breach of its contractual waste acceptance obligations,
individual utilities have been left to cope on their own with the problem of growing spent-fuel
inventories. Over the years, most of them have responded by packing spent fuel more tightly in cooling
pools and, increasingly, by moving the spent fuel from wet storage to on-site dry cask storage when
available space in the pools is exhausted. At plants that have implemented this form of storage, the
casks are typically placed on concrete pads in an open air enclosure on site where they are monitored
on an ongoing basis (see figure 14).

Figure 14. Dry Cask Storage Facility at the Decommissioned Maine Yankee Reactor Site
(source: http://www.maineyankee.com)
59
14/ 01/ 2012
After an initial period of cooling in wet storage (generally at least five years), dry storage (in casks or
vaults) is considered to be the safest and hence preferred option available today for extended periods of
interim storage (i.e., multiple decades up to 100 years or possibly more). Unlike wet storage systems,
dry systems use passive air cooling and are therefore less vulnerable to system failures. Nevertheless, it
is important to emphasize that spent fuel pools are essential to operating a nuclear power plant given
the need to be able to cool newly discharged fuel in a water-filled pool close to the reactor core. Pools
are also advantageous for the transfer of spent fuel into and out of casks.
In the United States, pools remain the dominant form of storage for spent fuel at still-operating reactor
sites (pools are currently also used for centralized and interim storage in other countries, including
France, Russia, and Sweden). Currently, less than one-fourth of the nations commercial spent fuel
stockpile is being stored in dry casks, although the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) projects this
fraction will grow steadily in coming years and that all operating power reactors will have dry storage
facilities in operation by 2025.
50
Figure 15 shows EPRIs projection for the expected amount and
distribution of commercial spent fuel in dry versus wet storage over the next several decades.
51

Figure 15. EPRI Projection of Cumulative Spent Nuclear Fuel from Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in
Pool Storage and Dry Storage, 2010 2060
60
14/ 01/ 2012
6

Figure 1. Main plutonium-related facilities in France, as of 31 December 2007.
5

With the suspension of the breeder program, it would have been natural to abandon the
commercial separation of plutonium. At the time, however, the extra costs of recycling separated
plutonium in LWR fuel was estimated to be relatively small -- some FRF 2.3 billion ( 350
million) over a ten-year period.
6
The fuel division of Frances national electricity utility, EDF,
therefore concluded in 1989 that putting into question that option [reprocessing] does not have
an economic basis and would have other significant international repercussions harmful for the
entire nuclear sector.
7

In 1989, Frances government-owned fuel-cycle company, COGEMA, which subsequently was
absorbed into AREVA, had just opened a new large reprocessing plant (UP3) at La Hague,
almost entirely pre-financed by foreign clients. Germanys utilities had just cancelled their
61
14/ 01/ 2012
16
IV. Reprocessing at Marcoule

France s f i rst l arge reprocessi ng pl ant, UP1 (Usi ne de Pl utoni um, or Pl utoni um Factory) started
operati ng i n 1958 i n Marcoul e. The pl ant, whi ch reprocessed up to 960 tons/year of heavy metal
i n spent f uel , was operated by CEA unti l 1976, when COGEMA was created as a 100%
subsi di ary (but i n the pri vate sector) and took over the pl ant. Ori gi nal l y UP1 reprocessed onl y gas
graphi te reactor (GGR) f uel f rom mi l i tary pl utoni um-producti on reactors. Later i t al so processed
f uel f rom GGR power reactors f or EDF and f or Spai n, and bl anket materi al f rom the Phni x f ast
breeder reactor.
42
I t al so reprocessed f uel f rom two heavy-water reactors that were used f or
pl utoni um and tri ti um producti on, Cl esti n-1 and -2, al so based at Marcoul e.

UP1 stopped the separati on of pl utoni um f or mi l i tary purposes i n 1993.
43
By 30 September 1997
when reprocessi ng at Marcoul e ended al together, a total of 13,330 tons of GGR f uel had been
reprocessed at UP1.
44

I n 2005, admi ni strati ve oversi ght at Marcoul e was reorgani zed and the CEA took over
responsi bi l i ty f or the si te agai n.
45
COGEMA, whi ch had been absorbed i nto AREVA NC on
1 March 2006, operates as a contractor f or the CEA.

Figure 4. The Marcoule site. The si te i s a huge R& D and i ndustri al compl ex, wi th shut-down f aci l i ti es (i ncl udi ng
the reprocessi ng pl ant UP1 and several gas-graphi te reactors) and operati ng ones (i ncl udi ng the MOX f uel
f abri cati on pl ant MELOX, and the f ast breeder reactor Phni x).

62
14/ 01/ 2012
15
63
14/ 01/ 2012
19
V. Repr ocessing at La Hague

The pl utoni um separati on pl ant UP2 on La Hague (Fi gure 5) was ori gi nal l y desi gned to reprocess
gas graphi te reactor (GGR) f uel at a rate of 800 tons per year. Hal f the i nvestment was covered by
the mi l i tary and the other hal f by the ci vi l i an budget of the CEA. Between 1966 and 1987, a total
of 4900 tons of GGR f uel were reprocessed at La Hague.
51

I n 1976, the capabi l i ti es of UP2 were extended by i nstal l ati on of a head end that coul d process
LWR f uel ; i t was dubbed UP2-400 or UP2-HAO (Haute Acti vi t Oxyde).
52
The begi nni ng of
LWR spent f uel reprocessi ng at La Hague was di f f i cul t. The nomi nal capaci ty of UP2-HAO
was l owered f rom 800 to 400 to 250 tons per year and then rai sed back to 400. Fi nal l y, af ter 11
years, the pl ant reached i ts desi gn throughput of 400 tons per year.

Figur e 5. The r epr ocessing complex at La Hague. The si te compri ses the ol d UP2-400 pl ant and the operati ng
pl ants UP2-800 and UP3 and thei r annex f aci l i ti es (spent f uel storage, waste treatment).

Repr ocessing Contr acts and Oper ational History

I n 1989 a second pl ant, cal l ed UP3 wi th a nomi nal capaci ty of 800 tons was started up at La
Hague. I t was al most enti rel y f i nanced by pre-pai d f orei gn contracts. The two mai n f orei gn cl i ent
64
14/ 01/ 2012
15

Figur e 3. Wast e and mater ials gener ated i n the nucl ear fuel chain

65
14/ 01/ 2012
25

Figur e 8. Gr owth in number of Fr ench LWRs using MOX (as of Dec. 2006)
Sources: COGEMA, ASN, WISE-Paris.

Figur e 9. Gr owth of Fr ance s stockpi le of separ ated plutonium (tons, as of 31 December)
Sources : EDF, MINEFI, COGEMA, WISE-Paris, IAEA 2006.

The second bottl eneck f actor i s the saf ety l i mi tati ons to the use of MOX f uel i n reactors. Twenty-
ei ght of France s 900-MWe reactors are desi gned wi th addi ti onal control rods to al l ow them to
66
14/ 01/ 2012
27
67
14/ 01/ 2012
1/4/12 The Hindu : News / International : Explosion at French nuclear reprocessing
1/2 www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2447241.ece
10
News International
Explosion at French nuclear reprocessing plant
Vaiju Naravane
At least one person was killed and three were seriously injured in an explosion at the Marcoule nuclear reprocessing
plant in southern France on Monday. Officials said there were no risks of a radioactive leak although they had been
slow to divulge details about the circumstances surrounding the accident.
The accident occurred at 11.45 a.m. at the Centraco nuclear waste treatment centre, which belongs to Socodei, a
subsidiary of the energy giant EDF. Marcoule, in the southern Gard region, is a major nuclear site. Its three reactors
have been decommissioned, but it is now a base for reprocessing nuclear waste.
A fire has also been reported from the storage area where the explosion took place.
The site is partly used by French nuclear giant Areva to produce mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, which recycles plutonium
from nuclear weapons, the AFP reported.
This kind of fuel, considered more dangerous from the radioactivity point of view because it uses a mix of uranium
and plutonium, is used in the EPR type of reactors India is planning to purchase from France.
The site is involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and operates a pressurised water reactor used to
produce tritium.
Opponents of nuclear power have always underlined the dangers linked to the safe disposal of nuclear waste, for which
no satisfactory solution exists.
Evangelia Petit of the Agency for Nuclear Safety said on Monday that an explosion had taken place, but declined to
provide further details. Officials in the Gard region confirmed the report, but did not elaborate.
French television reports said the blast took place in one of the fours (furnaces) at the plant. However, no
confirmation is available about the exact blast site or the manner in which it occurred.
With its 58 reactors, France is the second largest producer of nuclear energy and EDF is a world leader in building
and running nuclear power plants.
However, EDF has had to admit that its EPR reactor at Flamanville has now gone way over budget (from 3 billion to
7 billion) with delays of over two years following two fatalities on the site.
Sylvie Goulard, member of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Commission and the
rapporteur of budgetary surveillance in the Euro zone, told The Hindu: The future of nuclear energy looks less
radiant with each passing day and we would do well to ponder Germany's decision not to extend the life of its ageing
nuclear reactors and to invest massively in alternative energies.
Keywords: Marcoule nuclear site, explosion
Shae 19
Teet Teet 1
0
Ads by Google

68
14/ 01/ 2012
31
69
14/ 01/ 2012
12/26/11 Fukushima: letter from a high-school student to her teacher DiaNuke.org
1/6 www.dianuke.org/fukushima-letter-student/

Home Page
Fukushima
Nuclear Energy
India.s Nuclear Expansion
Nuclear and Society
Resources

Dec17
Fukushima: le. . e. fom a high-chool den o he eache
Fukushima: Updates and Analysis Vie all 2 comments
A lee fom a highchool den in Ibaaki, ho ha eacaed o Okinaa, o he eache
How are you? We have moved to Okinawa. My father and sister are still in Ibaraki.
It.s certain that I am getting health effects of radiation, I am so sure, as I.m having various symptoms. Mainly, my thyroid gland is
swollen, and I have nosebleeds and nettle rashes. My immune system seems to be a bit down.
I am so surprised myself at all these disorders I have on my body and I was told by a doctor in Okinawa that if I was to remain in
Ibaraki like that, I probably would have had to die soon.
I know that you teachers are public servants. So you can.t take actions as you like and you are not allowed to teach students about
radiation.
It was terribly painful to me when I discovered what the truth was, as I searched for information. Do you know how many people have already
died? It is said that, ten years from now, this whole generation of my age is going to disappear, or even earlier.
I am so worried about my friends in Ibaraki. I am sending them information using the internet, but they are mostly quite pessimistic about their
future, saying like I.m OK as long as things are going all right NOW, or Theres nothing I can do. I cannot have children anyway and My
parents are public servants, so we cant easily move out of here.
Yes of course. A high school student discovering truth means nothing much. They cant tell their parents about it, they would just spend their time
worrying.
70
14/ 01/ 2012
12/26/11 Fukushima: letter from a high-school student to her teacher DiaNuke.org
2/6 www.dianuke.org/fukushima-letter-student/
Deja-vu Before the
NRC
Nonviolence
confronts Nuclear
Insanity in India
Fighting Back
Against Nuclear
Power
Accidents at
nuclear power
plants in India
Nuclear Power
Industry 0 (wins)
6 (losses) in 2011
Sha. e .hi. :
Share
So don.t you think that it is the teachers who can tell their parents about the horror of radiation?
Yes there.s going to be significant risk involved in that. But aren.t children treasures for adults? It is only adults who can protect children now.
Unfortunately, the government has put importance on the economy rather than the lives of children. If the cancer rates increase in the future and if
we say that.s because of the radiation we had from Fukushima, they would probably deny the connection.
They said there.s no immediate dangerwhen the nuke plant exploded ! I mean, what about the future.
It is very clear that we will suffer in the future, if we continue living like normal. I never think like Im OK as long as things are fine NOW. You
can have your precious NOW moments anywhere fine. Your future depends largely on where you are now. I am so truly glad to be here in
Okinawa.
But what concerns me most is the future of children in Ibaragi, Kanto and Tohoku areas. It is so scary. Nobody has done anything wrong. No
one can be blamed. If theres anybody, its the government and TEPCO. We are all victims. Thats why I think you have to protect your own
life, while parents have to protect the lives of their children.
Please investigate the truth about radiation. Please tell that to many people and protect your precious students. After that, each individual can
decide what to do.
Please take care of yourself, eat safely and dont catch viruses through air. Thank you for reading.
Original text http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nagaikenji20070927/e/a0f32e0d10a294d046a4cb84c7a68d83
(A Japanese journalist Kouta Kinoshitas blog)
Source: http://bilininfojp.blogspot.com/2011/12/letter-from-highschool-student-in.html
Yo. migh. alo like:
LinkWihin
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment and subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed
reader.
Please send your articles, updates, pictures, videos etc to DiaNuke.org by mailing them to: nuclear.resource(at)gmail(dot)com

Like 121 people like this.
71
14/ 01/ 2012
32
72
14/ 01/ 2012
1/11/12 Japanese reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia, the free encclopedia
1/18 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
Japan towns, villages, and cities
around the Daiichi nuclear plant. The
20km and 30km areas had evacuation
and sheltering orders, and additional
administrative districts that had an
evacuation order are highlighted.
Fukushima I and II Nuclear
Accidents Overview Map showing
evacuation and other zone
progression and selected radiation
levels
Jap. . . e reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
The Japanese reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurred after the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster, following the 2011 Thoku earthquake and tsunami. A nuclear emergency was
declared by the government of Japan on 11 March. Later Prime Minister Naoto Kan issued instructions
that people within a 20 km (12 mi) zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant must leave, and
urged that those living between 20 km and 30 km from the site to stay indoors.
[1][2]
The latter groups
were also urged to evacuate on 25 March.
[3]
Japanese authorities have admitted that lax standards and poor oversight contributed to the nuclear
disaster.
[4]
They have come under fire for their handling of the emergency, and have engaged in a pattern
of withholding damaging information and denying facts of the accident.
[4][5][6]
Authorities apparently
wanted to "limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public
questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry". There has been public anger about an "official
campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks".
[5][6]
The accident is the
second biggest nuclear accident after the Chernobyl disaster, but more complex as all reactors are
involved.
[7]
Once a proponent of building more reactors, Prime Minister Naoto Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear
stance in the months following the Fukushima disaster. In May, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear
Power Plant be closed over earthquake and tsunami fears, and said he would freeze plans to build new
reactors. In July 2011, Mr. Kan said that "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence
on nuclear energy ... saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the
technology".
[8]
In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from
renewable energy sources.
[9]
An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October
2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the Fukushima
disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations reliance on nuclear power.
[10]
As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking low levels of radiation and areas
surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades due to high radiation.
[11]
Contents
1 Assessment and requests for help
2 Evacuations
2.1 Evacuation drills
2.2 Revising the Nuclear disaster response: widening evacuation zones
3 Meltdowns and radiation
3.1 Radiation in schools
3.2 Hotspots
4 TEPCO response
5 Business reaction
6 Anti-nuclear protests
7 Political reaction
7.1 Investigations of the Japanese Lower House
7.2 New legal restrictions for exposure to radiation proposed
7.3 Request for decommissioning the Tokai Daini Power plant
7.4 Fukushima wants all 10 nuclear reactors scrapped
7.5 TEPCO request for government compensation
7.6 At least 1 trillion yen needed for decontamination
7.7 Majority of Japanese nuclear reactors taken off line
7.8 Extra staff members for Kief embassy
7.9 Energy debate changed in Japan
7.10 40 year limit for life span of nuclear reactors
8 Monitoring the impact of radiation-exposure at the health of residents
9 Stress-tests
73
14/ 01/ 2012
U.S. military dependent-family dog is
unloaded off an evacuation flight
from Japan
10 Debris disposal
10.1 Interim Storage facility
11 Public reaction
12 Judicial actions against restarting nuclear powerplants
13 Scientific reaction
14 Financial liability
15 Economics
16 Compensation Payments
16.1 the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund
16.2 Compensation criteria for the tourist industry
17 Renewable energy
18 See also
19 References
Assessment and requests for help
Prime Minister Kan visited the plant for a briefing on 12 March.
[12]
He had been quoted in the press calling for calm and minimizing exaggerated
reports of danger.
[13]
Kan met with Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) on 15 March and lamented the lack of information. According to
press accounts, he asked, "What the hell is going on?"
[14]
Secretary of Government Yukio Edano stated around 18 March, "We could have moved
a little quicker in assessing the situation."
[15]
The Japanese government asked the United States to provide cooling equipment to the plant. As of 15 March, the U.S. had provided 3,265
kilograms (7,200 lb) of "special equipment", a fire truck,
[16]
to help monitor and assess the situation at the plant.
[17][18]
The French nuclear accident response organization Groupe INTRA shipped some of its radiation-hardened mobile robot equipment to Japan to
help with the nuclear accident.
[19]
At least 130 tonnes of equipment has been shipped to Japan.
[19]
Japan requested that Russia send the Landysh, a floating water decontamination facility originally built with Japanese funding and intended for
decommissioning nuclear submarines.
[20]
Former chiefs of key nuclear safety commissions and government agencies have apologized for overlooking important nuclear safety concerns.
[21]
Evacuations
After the declaration of a nuclear emergency by the Government at 19:03 on 11 March, the Fukushima
prefecture ordered the evacuation of an estimated 1,864 people within a distance of 2 km from the plant.
This was extended to 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) and 5,800 people at 21:23 by a directive to the local governor
from the Prime Minister, together with instructions for residents within 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) of the plant
to stay indoors.
[22][23]
The evacuation was expanded to a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) radius at 5:44 on 12
March, and then to 20 kilometres (12 mi) at 18:25, shortly before ordering use of seawater for emergency
cooling.
[22][24]
The Guardian reported at 17:35 JST on 12 March that NHK advised residents of the Fukushima area
"to stay inside, close doors and windows and turn off air conditioning. They were also advised to cover
their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs" as well as not to drink tap water.
[25]
Air traffic has
been restricted in a 20-kilometre (12 mi) radius around the plant, according to a NOTAM.
[26]
The BBC
has reported as of 22:49 JST (13:49 GMT) "A team from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences
has been dispatched to Fukushima as a precaution, reports NHK. It was reportedly made up of doctors, nurses and other individuals with expertise
in dealing with radiation exposure, and had been taken by helicopter to a base 5 km from the nuclear plant."
[27]
Over 50,000 people were evacuated during 12 March.
[28]
The figure increased to 170,000200,000 people on 13 March, after officials voiced the
possibility of a meltdown.
[29][30]
On the morning of 15 March, the evacuation area was again extended. Prime Minister Naoto Kan issued instructions that any remaining people
within a 20 km (12 mi) zone around the plant must leave, and urged that those living between 20 km and 30 km from the site should stay
indoors.
[31][32]
A 30 km no-fly zone has been introduced around the plant.
[citation needed]
On 16 March, the U.S. Embassy advised Americans in Japan to leave areas within "approximately 50 miles" (80 km) from the plant. Gregory
74
14/ 01/ 2012
Evacuation flight departs Misawa
Jaczko, the chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said before the United States
Congress, believing the Japanese government was not telling the full story, "We would recommend an
evacuation to a much larger radius than has currently been provided by Japan."
[33]
Spain advised to leave
an area of 120 km, Germany advised to leave even the metropolitan area of Tokyo, and South Korea
advised to leave farther than 80 km and plans to evacuate by all possible means.
[34][35]
Travel to Japan is
very low, but additional flights are chartered to evacuate foreigners. Official evacuation of Japan was
started by several nations.
[36]
The US military expects to voluntarily evacuate over 7000 family
dependents from Japan,
[37]
and has moved ships under repair away from Japanese ports.
[38]
Of 90 bedridden patients moved from a hospital in the town of Futaba-machi, a sample of three patients
were tested and shown to have been exposed to radiation. The patients had been waiting outdoors for rescuers before being moved by helicopter at
the time an explosion happened.
[39][40]
On 25 March, residents in the 30 kilometer circle were urged to leave their houses as well.
[3]
On 30 March the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered 20 MBq/m
2
of Iodine-131 samples taken from 18 to 26 March in Iitate,
Fukushima, 40 km northwest of the Fukushima I reactor. The IAEA recommended expanding the evacuation area, based on its criteria of
10 MBq/m
2
. Japanese Secretary Yukio Edano stated the government would wait to see if the high radiation continued.
[41]
On 31 March the IAEA
announced a new value of 7 MBq/m
2
, in samples taken from 19 to 29 March in Iitate.
[42]
The material decays at 8% to 9% each day.
On 11 April, with ongoing concerns about the stability of the reactors, Japan considered extending the evacuation zone around the Fukushima I.
[43]
Then, on 21 April 2011, the Japanese government declared a 20-km zone around Daiichi as a "no-go" zone, and threatened anyone who entered or
remained in the zone with arrest or detention and fines. The order affected 80,000 residents.
[44]
Shortly thereafter, on 22 April, the Japanese
government officially announced that the evacuation zone would be extended from the 20 km "circular" zone to an irregular zone extending
northwest of the Fukushima site.
[45]
Then, on 16 May, the Japanese government began evacuating people from outside the official exclusion zones,
including the village of Iitate, where high levels of radiation had been repeatedly measured.
[46][47]
Evacuees from the radiation zone have reported that some evacuation shelters, including ones run by the city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, have refused to
allow them entrance to their facilities, claiming that the evacuees could be carrying radioactive contamination with them. The shelters have required
the evacuees to present certificates obtained by the government of Fukushima prefecture stating that the evacuees are "radiation free".
[48][49]
As of September 2011, more than 100,000 Fukushima Prefecture residents are still subject to a range of evacuation measures, forcing them to live
outside their home cities and towns. Some locations near the crippled nuclear power plant are estimated to be contaminated with accumulated
radiation doses of more than 500 millisieverts a year, diminishing residents' hopes of returning home anytime soon. Even areas away from the nuclear
plant are still suffering from a sharp decline in tourism and sluggish financial conditions.
[50]
As of September 2011, nature reclaims the 20-kilometre evacuation zone, Fukushima's $3.2 billion-a-year farm industry is being devastated, and
tourists who hiked the prefecture's mountains and surfed off its beaches have all but vanished.
[51]
Evacuation drills
In Japan each fiscal year a prefecture, that has nuclear power-stations on its territory, is legally due to hold nuclear accident disaster drills. How to
evacuate the population out of the 10 kilometer evacuation-zone according the governmental anti-disaster guidelines. The Fukishima Daiichi
accidents proofed this 10 kilometer a big underestimation of the evacuation zones, that would be really needed to protect the population of the
prefecture from escaping radiation in a proper way. On 5 September 2011 three prefectures -- Aomori, Fukushima and Ibaraki -- were are unable
to hold the drills before March 2012. Six prefectures, including Hokkaido and Fukui, had not taken a decision to hold a drill, and were awaiting
new governmental guidelines how far to evacuate. Four other prefectures, including Ehime and Saga, planned to hold drills by establishing temporary
guidelines and by expanding evacuation zones on their own. The Nuclear Safety Commission aimed to review the evacuation zones and other
policies by the end of October.
[52]
Revising the Nuclear disaster response: widening evacuation zones
On 20 October 2011 the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan published it's views on the evacuation zones around nuclear plants in case of
accidents. In stead of the 10 kilometers evacuation-zone previously thought to be sufficient to protect inhabitants, a circle of 30 kilometer was
proposed as Urgent Protective Action Planning Zones, or UPZ. This definition was in line with the emergency-response requirements proposed by
the International Atomic Energy Agency. This draft-plan included the designating of areas within 5 kilometers of plants as precautionary action
zones, here residents should immediately evacuate in the event of an accident. Residents within a radius of about 50 kilometers should be prepared
to take immediately action to prevent internal exposure to their thyroid-glands by taking in iodine tablets. Further studies were planned with experts
and municipalities. Inplementation of this plan would mean a major review of all anti-nuclear disaster programs by local governments, and it would
increase the number of municipalities involved up to around 130, about 3 times more than the figure at that moment.
[53][54]
Meltdowns and radiation
75
14/ 01/ 2012
Three of the reactors at Fukushima
Daiichi overheated, causing
meltdowns that eventually led to
hydrogen explosions, which released
large amounts of radioactive gases
into the air.
[55]
Nuclear meltdowns at three of Fukushima Daiichis six reactors went officially unacknowledged for months:
In one of the most damning admissions, nuclear regulators said in early June that inspectors had
found tellurium 132, which experts call telltale evidence of reactor meltdowns, a day after the
tsunami but did not tell the public for nearly three months. For months after the disaster, the
government flip-flopped on the level of radiation permissible on school grounds, causing continuing
confusion and anguish about the safety of schoolchildren here in Fukushima.
[56]
At 12:33 JST on 13 March the Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, was reported to have confirmed
that there was a "significant chance" that radioactive fuel rods had partially melted in Unit 3 and Unit 1, or
that "it was 'highly possible' a partial meltdown was underway".
[30]
"I am trying to be careful with words...
This is not a situation where the whole core suffers a meltdown".
[57]
Soon after, Edano denied that a
meltdown was in progress. He claimed that the radioactive fuel rods had not partially melted and he
emphasized that there was no danger to the health of the population.
[58][59]
Edano later said that there
were signs that the fuel rods were melting in all three reactors. "Although we cannot directly check it, it's
highly likely happening".
[60]
In April 2011 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that some of the core of a stricken Japanese reactor had probably leaked
from its steel pressure vessel into the bottom of the containment structure, implying that the reactor damage was worse than previously thought. If
molten fuel has "left the reactors pressure vessel and reached the drywell in substantial quantities, it raises the possibility that the fuel could escape
the larger containment structure, leading to a large-scale radioactive release".
[61]
According to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, "by April 27 approximately 55 percent of the fuel in reactor unit 1 had melted,
along with 35 percent of the fuel in unit 2, and 30 percent of the fuel in unit 3; and overheated spent fuels in the storage pools of units 3 and 4
probably were also damaged".
[62]
The accident has surpassed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in seriousness, and is comparable to the 1986
Chernobyl disaster.
[62]
The Economist reports that the Fukushima disaster is "a bit like three Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in
the spent-fuel stores",
[63]
and that there will be ongoing impacts:
Years of clean-up will drag into decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up stretching beyond the plants perimeter. Seriously
exposed workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives...
[63]
On March 24, 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-
purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures". Officials said also that the fallout from the Dai-ichi plant is "hindering search efforts for
victims from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami".
[64]
A report from the Japanese Government to the IAEA says the "nuclear fuel in three reactors probably melted through the inner containment vessels,
not just the core". The report says the "inadequate" basic reactor design the Mark-1 model developed by General Electric included "the
venting system for the containment vessels and the location of spent fuel cooling pools high in the buildings, which resulted in leaks of radioactive
water that hampered repair work".
[65]
As of July 2011, the Japanese government has been unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nations food, and "Japanese
agricultural officials say meat from more than 500 cattle that were likely to have been contaminated with radioactive cesium has made its way to
supermarkets and restaurants across Japan". Radioactive material has also been detected in a range of other produce, including spinach, tea leaves,
milk, and fish, up to 200 miles from the nuclear plant. Inside the 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant, all farming has been abandoned.
[66][67]
As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking low levels of radiation and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable
for decades due to high radiation. It could take more than 20 years before residents could safely return to areas with current radiation readings of
200 millisieverts per year, and a decade for areas at 100 millisieverts per year.
[68]
Six months after the beginning of the Fukushima crisis, Mycle Schneider says the situation remains desperate:
...the technical situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is everything but stable. Families and farmers in the region remain desperate.
Evacuated families had to leave their pets starving and don't know if they ever can go back to their homes. Farmers had to kill their
cattle and destroy their harvests. Some finished by killing themselves. A French independent radioactivity-measuring lab announced
recently that it identified up to 700,000 becquerel of cesium per square meter on grass in a primary school in Fukushima City, over 60
kilometers from the Daiichi plant.
[69]
Radiation in schools
In the non-evacuated areas, the exposure limit for schoolyards was raised to 20 millisieverts per year. This non-negligible value (equal to the yearly
limit for nuclear workers in many countries) led to a large public reaction, including the resignation of Toshiso Kosako, special adviser on nuclear
76
14/ 01/ 2012
matters to the Japanese Governement. The government then had to "flip-flop" on the issue of radiation standards in schools, causing "continuing
confusion and anguish about the safety of schoolchildren in Fukushima".
[70]
Because of radiation concerns, tens of thousands of children are being kept inside school buildings during the hot summer, where some wear masks
even though the windows are kept shut. They are banned from their own school playgrounds, unable to play in local parks and kept inside by their
parents. Workers are removing the surface soil from schoolyards contaminated with radioactive particles from the nuclear plant, despite often having
nowhere to dump the soil, except in holes dug in the same grounds.
[70]
The results of a scientific survey conducted in March show that about 45 percent of 1,080 children in three Fukushima communities tested positive
for thyroid exposure to radiation. The government has said that the levels were too low to warrant further examination.
[70]
As of September 2011, a total of 16 elementary and junior high schools in Fukushima communities remained closed.
[71]
Hotspots
In October 2011, radiation levels as high as those in the evacuation zone around Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant have been detected in a Tokyo
suburb. Japanese officials said the contamination was linked to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Contaminations levels as high as those inside
Fukushima's no-go zone have been detected, with officials speculating that the hotspot was created after radioactive caesium carried in rain water
became concentrated because of a broken gutter.
[72]
In October 2011 the Japanese ministry of Science launched a telephone hotline to deal with public concerns about radiation exposure in areas
outside Fukushima Prefecture. Concerned Japanese citisens had taken up a new hobby: walking with Geiger-counters through their city or village in
search for all places with raised radiation levels. Whenever a site was found with a radiation dose at one meter above the ground more than one
microsievert per hour and higher than nearby areas, this should be mentioned at the hotline. One microsievert per hour is the limit above this topsoil
at school playgrounds would be removed, subsidized by the state of Japan. Local governments were asked to carry out simple decontamination
works, such as clearing mud from ditches if necessary. When radiation levels would remain more than one microsievert higher than nearby areas
even after the cleaning, the ministry offered to help with further decontamination. On the website of the ministry a guideline was posted on how to
measure radiation levels in a proper way, how to hold the dosimeter and how long to wait for a proper reading.
[73][74]
TEPCO response
There has been considerable criticism to the way the plant operator TEPCO has handled the crisis. Kuni Yogo, a former atomic energy policy
planner in Japans Science and Technology Agency
[75]
and Akira Omoto, a former Tepco executive and a member of the Japanese Atomic Energy
Commission
[76]
both questioned Tepco's management's decisions in the crisis.
[76]
Reports in the The Yomiuri Shimbun portray Prime Minister
Naoto Kan repeatedly ordering TEPCO to take actions such as opening steam valves with little response from the utility.
[77]
On 1 April 2011, ABC Ne. s reported that the plant's operators were "woefully unprepared for the scale of the disaster". Water is still being poured
into the damaged reactors to cool melting fuel rods. John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear
Corporation, has said that it "might be 100 years before melting fuel rods can be safely removed from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant".
[78]
Three weeks after the beginning of the disaster in Fukushima, Spiegel Online reported how "helpless and casual" TEPCO has been in its improvised
efforts to cope with the accident. The company hasn't put forward a strategy to regain control over the situation in the reactors. Helmut Hirsch, a
German physicist and nuclear expert, says "they are improvising with tools that were not intended for this type of situation".
[79]
There are roughly
400 workers onsite risking their lives to prevent the situation from deteriorating even further, who sleep in a building on the plant grounds. Each man
has been given a blanket and they lie on the floor in hallways, in stairwells and even in front of the clogged toilets.
[79][80]
TEPCO could face 2 trillion yen ($23.6 bln) in special losses in the current business year to March 2012 to compensate communities near its
crippled Fukushima I nuclear plant, according to JP Morgan.
[81]
As of June 2011, TEPCOs stock has "slumped 91 percent, erasing 3.2 trillion yen
($40 billion) in market value".
[82]
Japan plans to put TEPCO under effective state control so it can meet its compensation payments to people affected by radiation leaking from its
Fukushima I plant. Tokyo will set aside several trillion yen in public funds that TEPCO can "dip into if it runs short for payouts to people
affected".
[83]
Business reaction
On the 14 March, the first full business day after the accident, Japan's Nikkei 225 stock index fell 6%, followed up by another 11% drop on 15
March after the government warned of elevated radiation risks.
[84]
Likewise, plant owner TEPCO's shares fell 62% in the four days following the
accident, then started a 14% recovery.
[85]
However, by 29 March, TEPCO shares had fallen further, reaching a 34-year low.
[86]
77
14/ 01/ 2012
Anti-Nuclear Power Plant Rally on 19
September 2011 at Meiji Shrine
complex in Tokyo.
There have been blackouts throughout Tokyo and eight other prefectures. These blackouts have depressed economic output and made it harder for
the economy to recover from the earthquake. Due to a combination of lack of electricity and panic, Japanese car makers have closed down
factories, and airlines have cancelled flights to Japan.
[87]
The Japanese National Strategy Minister suggested nationalizing TEPCO on 28 March, in response Secretary Edano denied that approach was
being considered.
[88]
On 13 April, the government considered a plan to limit TEPCO's liability to approximately 3.8 trillion yen (US$45 billion).
[89]
Some foreign firms (including SAP, Dow Chemical, IKEA, BNP Paribas, and H&M) have moved staff from Tokyo westward to Osaka or to other
countries, as did some Tokyo embassies (including those of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Denmark) reshuffles to Osaka. Some airlines
(KLM, Air France, Lufthansa and Alitalia) changed destinations from Tokyo's Narita airport to Kansai airport in western Japan for some period
afterward.
[90][91][92]
On an annual food safety exhibition in Tokyo held on 26 to 28 October 2011 machines were showed that could measure radiation: on conveyor
belts food and other objects could be proofed by a radiation sensor, the outcome could be read within 12 seconds. In this way a large number of
objects could be checked in a very short time. Despite the huge price: 56,000 dollars, farmers, beef processors and restaurant chains showed great
interest. Smaller devices to check food on radioactivity were shown, testing food placed in beakers. These could be used by smaller firms or even in
households. The cheapest offer of this small machines was still around 9,000 dollars.
[93]
Because the public concerns about the radioactive contamination of food, Aeon, a Japanese supermarket chain decided to publish the results of
voluntary radiation tests performed on food of Japanese origine in their stores. The information was available on the website, and at posters in the
stores. Fish, vegetables, rice, beef and more were controlled by the shops since March 2011. All products with 50 becquerels per kilogram, one-
tenth of the government's provisional limit. were rejected and not offered in the stores. In the first week of November 2011 radioactive cesium was
found in Pacific cod and rice from Fukushima, in tuna from Miyagi and in bonito from Iwate. The customers were offered a list with all contaminted
food that was found, their radioactivity levels and production areas.
[94]
Anti-nuclear protests
There have been many anti-nuclear protests in Japan during 2011.
[95]
On 27 March at least 1000 people
attended the monthly demonstration of the Japan Congress Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs in
Tokyo after advertising on social network sites.
[96]
Protesters have typically been polite and restrained,
but the government is "acutely aware that public anger against nuclear power is growing", and that is
forcing Japan's leaders to rethink the country's energy policies.
[97]
On March 26 two dozen Diet members signed a letter calling on the government to "immediately get
young children and pregnant women out of the 30-km danger zone around the heavily damaged
Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant". The statement also called for "extending the current 20-km
mandatory evacuation zone radically to avoid further exposure and discontinuing official declarations that
there is no immediate harm to human health, charging they aren't properly transmitting to the public the
dangers of possible long-term radiation harm". The statement, drawn up by anti-nuclear groups, is to be
delivered to Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
[98]
As of March 30 there was growing consensus that the severity of the Fukushima nuclear disaster had surpassed the Three Mile Island accident to
become the world's second-worst nuclear accident. The early effects on Japanese public opinion and government policy were felt. NGOs and anti-
nuclear groups gained credibility, including Greenpeace, which launched a study on the impact of the Fukushima crisis.
[99]
On March 31 an anti-nuclear activist attempted to drive into the radiation-leaking Fukushima I complex, and later crashed through a locked gate at
the Fukushima II power plant.
[100]
In mid-April, 17,000 people protested at two demonstrations in Tokyo against nuclear power.
[101][102]
One protester, Yohei Nakamura, said
nuclear power is a serious problem and that anti-nuclear demonstrations were undercovered in the Japanese press because of the influence of the
Tokyo Electric Power Co. He said that "If the mass media shows anti-nuclear-power activities like demonstrations, they risk losing TEPCO as an
advertiser."
[101][103]
Three months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, thousands of anti-nuclear protesters marched in Japan. Company workers, students, and parents
with children rallied across Japan, "venting their anger at the government's handling of the crisis, carrying flags bearing the words 'No Nukes!' and
'No More Fukushima'."
[104]
The ongoing Fukushima crisis may spell the end of nuclear power in Japan, as "citizen opposition grows and local
authorities refuse permission to restart reactors that have undergone safety checks". Local authorities are skeptical that sufficient safety measures
have been taken and are reticent to give their permission now required by law to bring suspended nuclear reactors back online.
[105]
More than
60,000 people in Japan marched in demonstrations in Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima and Fukushima on June 11, 2011.
[106]
In July 2011, Japanese mothers, many new to political activism, have started "taking to the streets to urge the government to protect their children
78
14/ 01/ 2012
from radiation leaking from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant". Using social networking media, such as Facebook and Twitter, they have
"organized antinuclear energy rallies nationwide attended by thousands of protesters".
[107]
In July 2011, the Hidankyo, the group representing the 10,000 or so survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan, called for the first time for the
elimination of civilian nuclear power. In its action plan for 2012, the group appealed for "halting construction of new nuclear plants and the gradual
phasing out of Japans 54 current reactors as energy alternatives are found".
[108]
Sumiteru Taniguchi, director of the Nagasaki Council of A-Bomb
Sufferers, has linked the Fukushima disaster to the atomic bombings of Japan:
[109]
Nuclear power and mankind cannot coexist. We survivors of the atomic bomb have said this all along. And yet, the use of nuclear
power was camouflaged as 'peaceful' and continued to progress. You never know when there's going to be a natural disaster. You can
never say that there will never be a nuclear accident.
[109]
In August 2011, about 2,500 people including farmers and fishermen marched in Tokyo. They are suffering heavy losses following the Fukushima
nuclear disaster, and called for prompt compensation from plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the government, chanting slogans such as
"TEPCO must pay compensation swiftly".
[110]
In September 2011, anti-nuclear protesters, marching to the beat of drums, took to the streets of Tokyo and other cities to mark six months since
the March earthquake and tsunami and vent their anger at the government's handling of the nuclear crisis set off by meltdowns at the Fukushima
power plant.
[111]
An estimated 2,500 people marched past TEPCO headquarters, and created a human chain around the building of the Trade
Ministry that oversees the power industry. Protesters called for a complete shutdown of Japanese nuclear power plants and demanded a shift in
government policy toward alternative sources of energy. Among the protestors were four young men who started a 10-day hunger strike to bring
about change in Japan's nuclear policy.
[111]
Tens of thousands of people marched in central Tokyo in September 2011, chanting "Sayonara nuclear power" and waving banners, to call on
Japan's government to abandon atomic energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Author Kenzaburo Oe, who won the Nobel Prize for
literature in 1994, and has campaigned for pacifist and anti-nuclear causes addressed the crowd. Musician Ryuichi Sakamoto, who composed the
score to the movie "The Last Emperor" was also among the event's supporters.
[112]
Political reaction
On 23 March 2011 ten days after the hydrogen-explosions the recommendations of the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan to protect the people
living nearby the exploded Fukushima reactors, were put aside by the Japanese Government. The proposed measures were based on the results
provided by a computer program named SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information). This program was
specially designed to predict the spread of radioactive materials after a nuclear accident. The proposed measurements included evacuations and to
administer iodine-tablets to the people to minimize the intake of radioactive Iodine. However the office of the prime minister decided, that ten days
after the explosions it was too late, and did nothing of this. These facts came to light in the first weeks of December 2011, when a govenment panel
examined the details about the delay in utilizing the data produced by SPEEDI.
[113]
Prime Minister Naoto Kan's ruling party suffered embarrassing losses in April local elections after the Japanese leader came under fire over the
nuclear disaster, further weakening his influence and bolstering rivals who want him to quit once the crisis ends.
[114]
Fukushima Governor Y. hei Sat refused to meet former TEPCO president Masataka Shimizu on two occasions due to his anger at the utility's
handling of the disaster.
[115]
Shimizu later resigned.
Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have hardened attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government information on radiation".
[105]
The ongoing Fukushima crisis may spell the end of
nuclear power in Japan, as "citizen opposition grows and local authorities refuse permission to restart reactors that have undergone safety checks".
Local authorities are skeptical that sufficient safety measures have been taken and are reticent to give their permission now required by law to
bring suspended nuclear reactors back online.
[105]
Prime Minister Naoto Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance in the months following the Fukushima disaster. In May, he ordered the aging
Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant be closed over earthquake and tsunami fears, and he said he would freeze plans to build new reactors. In July
2011, Kan said that "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy in what would be a radical shift in the countrys
energy policy, saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology".
[116]
Kan said Japan should abandon plans to
build 14 new reactors by 2030. He wants to "pass a bill to promote renewable energy and questioned whether private companies should be running
atomic plants".
[117]
Benjamin K. Sovacool has said that, with the benefit of hindsight, the Fukushima disaster was entirely avoidable in that Japan could have chosen to
exploit the country's extensive renewable energy base.
[118]
The biggest positive result of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster could be renewed
public support for the commercialization of renewable energy technologies.
[119]
In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize
electricity from renewable energy sources. The legislation will become effective on July 1, 2012, and require utilities to buy electricity generated by
79
14/ 01/ 2012
renewable sources including solar power, wind power and geothermal energy at above-market rates.
[120]
Investigations of the J apanese Lower House
The special committee of the Japanese Lower House investigating the Fukushima disaster had requested to TEPCO to submit its procedural
manuals for accidents by the end of the whole first week of September. But when the accident manuals were submitted to the Diet committee most
of the contents was blacked out and heavily redacted. On 12 September 3 pages were presented, including a cover sheet, containing an index of
actions to be taken in serious accidents. Most of the index was blacked out and TEPCO did collect the papers immediately after the meeting,
explaining that this was restricted information with copyrights, that was not allowed to be made public. The special committee did ask the industry
ministry to order the utility to resubmit the manuals in their original form, as required by law. NISA said it would consider what actions to take.
[121]
As of September 2011, there is a complex power struggle underway over the future of nuclear energy in Japan involving political, governmental,
industry, and union groups. Despite the seriousness of the Fukushima crisis, Japans "historical commitment to nuclear power -- and a fuel cycle that
includes reprocessing and breeder reactors -- still has powerful supporters".
[122]
New legal restrictions for exposure to radiation proposed
On 6 October 2011 a government panel proposed to ease the legal restrictions for exposure to radiation in the contaminated area's with radioative
fallout, because in their opinion it would be extremely difficult to limit exposure below the legal limit of 1 millisievert per year. In stead the target
should be set between 1 and 20 millisieverts in line with the recommendations by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. Targets
should be lowered in steps as decontamination would be successful. Targets might differ by region and residents should have a voice in setting the
targets.
[123]
Request for decommissioning the Tokai Daini Power plant
On 11 October 2011 Tatsuya Murakami, the mayor of the village Tokai, said in a meeting with minister Goshi Hosono, that the Tokai Daini reactor
situated at 110 kilometer from Tokio should be decommissioned, because the plant was more than 30 years old, and the people had lost confidence
in the nuclear safety commission of the government.
[124]
Fukushima wants all 10 nuclear reactors scrapped
The assembly of prefecture Fukushima has adopted a motion that asks for the scrapping of all 10 nuclear reactors in the prefecture. The majority
vote was on Thursday 20 October 2011, after the petition was submitted by a civic group in June. The petition urged the decommissioning of all
reactors run by TEPCO in the prefecture -- six at the Daiichi plant and four at the Daini plant. This was the first time in Japan that a prefecture
hosting nuclear plants has voted to adopt such a petition. Although TEPCO was planning to decommission four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi
plant, TEPCO still had detailed plans to exploit the remaining six reactors.
[125][126]
TEPCO request for government compensation
In his answer to TEPCO, after its request of 120 billion yen as government compensation, the minister of Industry Yukio Edano on Monday told
TEPCO on 24 October 2011 to cut "at least" 2.5 trillion yen in its costs over the coming 10 years before TEPCO would receive any funds to help it
to pay the compensations over the nuclear crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi power plant. This target was the outcome of a report from independent
commission, that the Japanese government received at 3 October, in it their thoughts about how TEPCO's special business plan should be compiled
as a precondition to receive financial aid from a state-backed body set up to help it meet its massive compensation obligations. Next to cost-cutting
this special business plan would also include restructuring measurements. First plan would be an "emergency" plan, and the second plan should have
a "comprehensive" character. This last plan should be completed in spring 2012.
[127]
At least 1 trillion yen needed for decontamination
In October 2011, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas
contaminated by radiation from the Fukuahima nuclear disaster. Japan "faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil
from a sprawling area in Fukushima, located 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, and four nearby prefectures".
[128]
Majority of J apanese nuclear reactors taken off line
On 28 October 2011 from the 55 nuclear reactors in Japan, 44 were taken off the grid and off line, most times because they underwent safety
inspections. Tress-tests demanded by the Japanese government were performed at 18 reactors. From the reactors still in operation, 4 more would
be closed down before the end of 2011, the rest would follow in the first months of 2012. None of these reactors were to be taken in production,
because the Fukushima disaster had raised serious safety concerns among local authorities, and they were reluctant to give permission to
restart.
[129][130]
80
14/ 01/ 2012
An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly
damaged" by the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations reliance on nuclear power. It also omits a section on nuclear power
expansion that was in last years policy review.
[131]
Extra staff members for Kief embassy
On 30 October 2011 the Japanese government took up the plan to increase the 30 members of the staff at the Japanese embassy in Kief, Ukraine
to 36. For the first time two nuclear experts and three interpreters will be stationed here. In order to learn from the experience of this country with
the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. In this way Japan hoped to built on good relations between the two countries, also because growing
numbers of Japanese officials were visiting Ukaine at that moment. The new staff was expected to gather information about handling a no-go zone,
the removal of radioactive materials, and how to deal with internal exposure to radiation. People affected by the Chernobyl disaster would also be
questioned. The embassy was equipped with dosimeters and protection outfits for field studies. The extra costs of the additional embassy staff was
estimated at 200 million yen.
[132]
Energy debate changed in J apan
According to The Japan Times, the Fukushima nuclear disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. "By shattering the
government's long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong
anti-nuclear sentiment". A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74 percent answered "yes" to whether Japan should
gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear free.
[133]
40 year limit for life span of nuclear reactors
On 6 January 2012 the Japanese government proposed a maximum life-span or nuclear reactros of 40 years. This was one of many proposals that
nuclear crisis minister Goshi Hosono announced to review the nuclear safety regulations for nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel material. This was the
first time that the Japanese government tried to regulate the lifespan of nuclear powerplants. When safety and maintenance of the plant would proof
alright, the operator could request for an extension of this 40 year. Safety standards against earthquakes, tsunamis and other disasters would be
revized with the new knowledge and technology in protective measures. Power companies were to comply with the new standards. Approval of the
new law by the parliament was sceduled not before the end of January 2012, but ahead of the installation of the new nuclear safety agency in April
2012.
[134]
Monitoring the impact of radiation-exposure at the health of residents
On 4 November 2011 in the city of Hamamatsu, Goshi Hosono, minister in charge of the nuclear crisis, made a remark about plans to set up a
study after the health consequences of radiation levels of about 20 millisieverts per year. Studies done after nuclear accidents in the past suggested
that radiation levels more than 100 millisieverts per year would have negative effects on human health, but the effects of lower levels were uncertain.
The Japanese government hoped to be able to accept 20 millisieverts per year as under limit for radiation levels that do not influence human health.
This exposure limit is recommended by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. About the governement project of disposing of
debris in areas outside northeastern Japan, Hosono said that rubble from Iwate and Miyagi was not radioactive, and burning rubble was harmless,
and the ashes would be disposed safely. Local governments would be asked for cooperation, the government ensured the safety and would take
responsibility for all.
[135][136][137]
On 20 December the Ministry of Environment announced an extra program to monitor the impact of radiation exposure on children born to mothers
in the prefecture Fukushima. To find links between the radiation exposure of the mothers and congenital abnormalities, asthma, allergies or other
diseases of their children. The checks would stop, when the children reach the age of 13.
[138]
Stress-tests
On 8 November the Japanese government published the first results of nuclear safety tests at the website of NISA. This was done to boost
transparency before laid-off reactors were restarted. The minister of industry Yukio Edano asked the public to respond with remarks and questions
about the tests, and promised to respond to this all. He hoped, that this would lead to a better understanding of the nuclear safety procedures.
[139]
Debris disposal
Nine months after the disaster of 11 March it proofed increasingly difficult to dispose all the debris and rubble. In April 572 municipalities were
willing to accept the debris, but in the latest survey done by the Ministry of Environment on 7 October only 54 municipalities in 11 prefectures were
willing to consider acceptance, and only six places had already taken in parts of the debris. Fear for radioactive contamination was thought to be the
cause for this. The ministry declined to identify the municipalities that have agreed, or refused, to accept the debris. Some 4.88 million tons of rubble
were neede to be disposed of a year after the quake. Around 20.5 million tons was collected in Iwate and Miyagi, all was stored at multiple
81
14/ 01/ 2012
temporary storage sites. The debris from Fukushima would be stored within this prefecture. On 2 November 30 tons of debris was loaded on train,
and sent to Tokyo by rail from the city of Miyako, Iwate. The first train carrying the debris would arrive in Tokyo on 4 November. This made
Tokyo the first local government outside Japan's northeast to accept debris.
[140][141]
Interim Storage facility
On 28 December at a meeting in the city of Fukushima minister Goshi Hosono asked the local leaders of prefecture Fukushima for permission to
build an interim storage facility somewhere in the county of Futaba near the two vilages hosting the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Local residents however were seriously divided. Those who would like to return to their houses, were afraid, that an iterim-storage might proof to
be a very permanent storage, and would make any return impossible. But others had already accepted the fact, that the radiation-levels around their
former houses would be too high, and would make living there impractical for a long time. Some local residents realized that without the interim
storage facility, there would no place to dispose radioactive waste at all, and the construction of the facility would create also new jobs.
Local leaders were willing to accept the new waste-storage, but in the mean time they were reluctant, because the anger of some of their citizens
and the fact that the presence of it, could hamper all efforts to decontaminate the area and would make repopulation impossible. Therefor they
requested an insurance from the government, that the storage would be closed after 30 years.
[142]

[143]
Public reaction
The news of the contamination of foods with radioactive substances leaking from the Fukushima nuclear reactors damaged the mutual trust between
local food producers including farmers and consumers. Everywhere in Japan banners and stickers were found with: "Hang in there, Fukushima!",
numerous harmful rumors on Fukushima products could be found online. Many rumors that were discriminatory to Fukushima and other messages
slandering Fukushima people could be found on the Internet. The source of cesium was found to be rice straw that had been fead to the animal. But
a notice of the Japanese government that was sent to cattle-farmers after the nuclear accident made no mention to the possibility that
rice straw could be contaminated with radioactive materials from the plant.
[144]
Judicial actions against restarting nuclear powerplants
In August 2011 citizens of the prefecture Shiga, at the banks of Lake Biwa, started a law suit at the Otsu District Court, and asked a court order to
prevent the restart of seven reactors operated by Kansai Electric Power Company, in the prefecture Fukui.
On 8 November 2011 a group of 40 citizens of Otsu prefecture Kyodo started a similar law suit at the Otsu District Court against Japan Atomic
Power Company. They asked for a provisional court order to delay the restart of the two reactors at the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant in the city of
Tsuruga. The plaintiffs argued that:
Lake Biwa, could be contaminated when a nuclear accident would occure at the plant
The whole region of Kansai is dependent on this biggest lake of Japan because it is the source of drinking water for the whole region
an accident would endanger the health of all residents
the Tsuruga plant is built on a site with a fault below it and a severe accident could occur during an earthquake
the No. 1 reactor had been more than 40 years in service since it was first operational in 1970, and the Tsuruga plant was insufficiently
protected against tsunami's.
the ongoing regular checks were done under the government's safety and technological standards, and the nuclear crisis in Fukushima had
proven that those regulations were insufficient.
the reactors should remain shut down until the cause of the disaster in Fukushima would be fully investigated
the regular checks should be performed under the new safety standards.
The operator of the plant did not want to make any comment to the press. At that time the two reactors of the plant were shut down for regular
checkups. But the four-month inspection of the No. 2 reactor could be completed in December, and the checkup of reactor 1 could be completed
in March 2012.
[145]
On 27 December 2011 a law-suit was started against Ky. sh. Electric Power Company by 290 local residents. Most of them living in the
prefectures Saga and Fukuoka. They said that the disaster in Fukishima had made it clear, that an accident at the Genkai-plant caused by a possible
earthquake or tsunami could damage the lives and heallth of the people living nearby. They questioned in particular the safety of the 36 year old nr. 1
reactor near the sea. Kyushu Electric commented, that it would examine the suit and would act "appropriately." This was already the third time that
locals tried to stop this plant. Because in July 2011 90 people asked the local court for an injunction order to stop the nr. 2 and nr. 3 Genkai-
reactors from going back online, like was done in August 2010 when about 130 local residents and others demanded from the district court to halt
to the use of plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, at the No. 3 Genkai-reactor.
[146]
Scientific reaction
82
14/ 01/ 2012
On 25 October 2011 the university of Hiroshima disclosed a plan to train the staff of the Japan Red Cross staff in how to respond to nuclear
disasters like the one in Fukushima. The papers were to be signed on 26 October 2011. The president Toshimasa Asahara of the University said,
he hoped that the university staff would also learn from the experience of the Red Cross in the care for disaster-disasters, including those in other
countries. The University of Hiroshima University did establish a leading research center into the effects of radiation on the human body and health:
the Research Institute for Radiation, Biology and Medicine, due to decades lasting studies after the effects on local population, that survived the
atomic-explosion of Hiroshima in 1945.
[147]
The Fukushima accident exposed some troubling nuclear safety issues:
[148]
Despite the resources poured into analyzing crustal movements and having expert committees determine earthquake risk, for instance,
researchers never considered the possibility of a magnitude-9 earthquake followed by a massive tsunami. The failure of multiple safety
features on nuclear power plants has raised questions about the nation's engineering prowess. Government flip-flopping on acceptable
levels of radiation exposure confused the public, and health professionals provided little guidance. Facing a dearth of reliable
information on radiation levels, citizens armed themselves with dosimeters, pooled data, and together produced radiological
contamination maps far more detailed than anything the government or official scientific sources ever provided.
[148]
Financial liability
Under Japanese law
[149]
the operator is liable for nuclear damage regardless of culpability except in cases of exceptionally grave natural disasters
and insurrection. Government spokesman Edano said this exception would be "impossible under current social circumstances".
[150]
Reactor operation is prohibited unless the operator concludes a private contract of liability insurance as well as an indemnity agreement with the
government for damage not covered by private insurance. An amount of coverage of 120 billion yen per installation is required.
[151]
The Japan
Atomic Energy Insurance Pool does not cover damage caused by earthquakes and tsunamis.
[152]
If damage exceeds the amount of coverage, the
government may give the operator the aid required to compensate the damage, if authorized by the Japanese Diet.
[153]
On 13 April, the government
considered a plan to limit TEPCO's liability to approximately 3.8 trillion yen (US$45 billion).
[154]
Economics
On 9 November 2011 the ministry of Finance reported that since the disaster in March 2011, du to rising energy costs, high oil-prices, and the need
to replace the loss of nuclear power the current account surplus had fallen 21.4 percent to 20.4 billion dollars compared with the year 2010. A
decline of seven months in-a-row. The trade balance had also fallen by 59 percent year-on-year to a surplus of about 4.8 billion dollars. The strong
yen made the export of electronic components difficult. Through higher returns on overseas investments however the income account surplus rose
12.9 percent to nearly 18 billion dollars. Compared with 2010 the balance of international payments had shrunk 46.8 percent.
[155]
Compensation Payments
the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund
On 21 October the president of TEPCO Toshio Nishizawa said that his company hoped to avoid capital injections from the Nuclear Damage
Liability Facilitation Fund, a foundation of the Japanese government. TEPCO would need financial aid from this fund to be able to pay the huge
compensation payments due to the nuclear disaster at its Fukushima nuclear power plants. At a press-conference in Tokyo Nishizawa made the
following remarks:
"We would like to properly conduct compensation by receiving financial assistance, while also taking rationalization measures to turn around
management and keep on going as a private company, I think it's the best option for all to avoid capital injection as much as possible."
TEPCO might claim in October 2011 the sum of 120 billion yen of government compensation for the nuclear accident, this is the maximum amount
set by a contract between the government and TEPCO. Compensation payments to people and companies that suffered damages through the crisis
at that date already exceeded 150 billion yen. These compensation payments could rise up to 4.54 trillion yen (4,500,000,000,000 yen or around
59,008,000,000 US dollar) by March 2013, as was reveiled by a report made by a commission of the Japanese government According to an
estimate by a report compiled by a government panel, compensation payments could reach 4.54 trillion yen by March 2013. Special Government
bonds, that carry no interest but could be cashed when necessary, would raise the money needed. The fund has also the right to make capital
injections to TEPCO by subscriping shares. In close cooperation with this fund Tepco tried to seek financial backup for the future.
[156]
Compensation criteria for the tourist industry
On 26 October TEPCO revised its criteria in calculating the damage suffered by tourist businesses after the crisis. Initial calculations by TEPCO
included a minus of 20 percent of the calculated losses. In the first announcment 21 September 2011 TEPCO said, that this 20 percent was thought
to be caused not by radiation fears, but through the impact of the earthquake and the tsunami that followed. The new criteria offered two options:
83
14/ 01/ 2012
10 percent reduction, no limit to the period.
20 percent reduction, but the period is shortened to 31 May 2011, between the first of June and 31 August the rate would be zero.
The first criteria were based on data on the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake that hit Kobe and surrounding area, this provoked much
opposition.
[157]
Renewable energy
In September 2011, Tetsunari Iida launched the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation, which is backed by 1 billion (US$13 million) from Japan's
richest man, Masayoshi Son. The foundation will bring together some 100 experts from around the world to analyse obstacles to implementing
renewable energy, and offer policy recommendations to the new Japanese government.
[158]
As of September 2011, Japan plans to build a pilot floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast.
[159]
After the
evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."
[159]
See also
International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Nuclear renaissance
Nuclear energy policy
Nuclear power debate
Anti-nuclear movement
Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Protective Action Guide for Nuclear Incidents
Radiation monitoring in Japan
References
1. ^ Richard Black (15 March 2011). "BBC News Japan quake: Radiation rises at Fukushima nuclear plant" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
12740843) . BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
2. ^ "Japan's PM urges people to clear 20-km zone around Fukushima NPP (Update-1) | World | RIA Novosti"
(http://en.rian.ru/world/20110315/163008635.html) . En.rian.ru. http://en.rian.ru/world/20110315/163008635.html. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
3. ^
a

b
Makinen, Julie (25 March 2011). "Japan steps up nuclear plant precautions; Kan apologizes"
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-nuclear-plant-20110326,0,5763742.story) . L.A. Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-nuclear-plant-20110326,0,5763742.story.
4. ^
a

b
"U.N. atom body wants wider nuclear safety checks" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/nuclear-iaea-safety-
idUSLDE77E0F720110815) . Reuters. August 15, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/nuclear-iaea-safety-idUSLDE77E0F720110815.
5. ^
a

b
Norimitsu Onishi (August 8, 2011). "Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=1) . Ne. York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=1.
6. ^
a

b
Charles Digges (10 August 2011). "Japan ignored its own radiation forecasts in days following disaster, imperiling thousands"
(http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2011/rad_forcasts_ignored) . Bellona. http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2011/rad_forcasts_ignored.
7. ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring," (http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/132391/20110409/japan-nuclear-crisis-radiation.htm)
International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and
the most dramatic ... This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not."
8. ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (July 13, 2011). "Japan Premier Wants Shift Away From Nuclear Power"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/world/asia/14japan.html?_r=1&hp) . Ne. York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/world/asia/14japan.html?_r=1&hp.
9. ^ Chisaki Watanabe (August 26, 2011). "Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies, in Shift From Nuclear Power"
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/japan-passes-renewable-energy-bill-one-precondition-of-kan-s-resignation.html) . Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/japan-passes-renewable-energy-bill-one-precondition-of-kan-s-resignation.html.
10. ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (Oct 28, 2011). "Nuclear Promotion Dropped in Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima"
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/nuclear-promotion-dropped-in-japan-energy-policy-after-fukushima.html) . Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/nuclear-promotion-dropped-in-japan-energy-policy-after-fukushima.html.
11. ^ "Areas near Japan nuclear plant may be off limits for decades" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-japan-nuclear-uninhabitable-
idUSTRE77Q17U20110827) . Reuters. August 27, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-japan-nuclear-uninhabitable-
idUSTRE77Q17U20110827.
12. ^ "Kan inspects quake-hit nuclear plant in Fukushima" (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77002.html) . Kyodo News. 12 March 2011.
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77002.html. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
84
14/ 01/ 2012
12/19/11 List of civilian nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encclopedia
1/12 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
List of civlian nuclear acciden. .
This article lists notable civilian accidents involving fissile nuclear material or nuclear reactors. Civilian incidents not
serious enough to be accidents are listed at List of civilian nuclear incidents. Military accidents are listed at List of
military nuclear accidents. Civil radiation accidents not involving fissile material are listed at List of civilian radiation
accidents. For a general discussion of both civilian and military accidents, see Nuclear and radiation accidents.
See al. o: Li st of n. clea. di. ae and adioacie inciden
Conen
1 Scope of this article
2 1950s
3 1960s
4 1970s
5 1980s
6 1990s
7 2000s
8 2010s
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
Scope of hi aicle
In listing civilian nuclear accidents, the following criteria have been followed:
1. There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
2. The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power
plant.
3. To qualify as "civilian", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.
4. The event should involve fissile material or a reactor.
1950
December 12, 1952 . INES Level 5
[ciaion needed]
- Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core
damaged
A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power
excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The
operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30
seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the
reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released
85
14/ 01/ 2012
through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant
circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a
disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of
surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries
resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term
health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a Lieutenant in the US Navy, was
among the cleanup crew.
[1]
September 29, 1957 INES Level 6 - Kyshtym disaster - Mayak, Russia (then a part of the Soviet
Union)
The Kyshtym disaster was a radiation contamination incident that occurred on 29 September
1957 at Mayak, a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Russia (then a part of the Soviet Union).
It measured as a Level 6 disaster on the International Nuclear Event Scale, making it the third
most serious nuclear accident ever recorded (after the Chernobyl disaster, and Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster, both Level 7 on the INES scale). The cooling system in one of the
tanks containing about 7080 tons of liquid radioactive waste failed and was not repaired.
The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the
dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate
bomb). The explosion, estimated to have a force of about 70100 tons of TNT threw the
concrete lid, weighing 160 tons, into the air.
[2]
There were no immediate casualties as a result
of the explosion, which released an estimated 2 to 50 MCi (74 to 1850 PBq) of
radioactivity.
[3][4][5]
In the next 10 to 11 hours, the radioactive cloud moved towards the
northeast, reaching 300350 kilometers from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in
a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 square kilometers, primarily with
caesium-137 and strontium-90.
[3]
This area is usually referred to as the East-Ural Radioactive
Trace (EURT).
[6]
May 24, 1958 INES Level . eeded - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged
Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it
was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not
before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and,
to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed
in the clean-up.
[7][8]
October 25, 1958 - INES Level . eeded - Vin. a, Serbia (then Yugoslavia) - Criticality excursion,
irradiation of personnel
During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Vinca
Nuclear Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor.
[9]
Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of
moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher
detected from the smell of ozone.
[10]
Six scientists received radiation doses of 24 Sv (200
400 rems)
[11]
(p. 96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed
on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all
cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This
was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA.
[12]
July 26, 1959 INES Level . eeded - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States -
Partial meltdown
86
14/ 01/ 2012
A partial core meltdown may have taken place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE)
experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in
the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases.
[13]
1960.
April 3, 1960 - INES Level needed Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, United States
A core melt accident occurred at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill test reactor. From what information
remains of the event, one fuel element melted, resulting in the disposition of 2 million gallons of
contaminated water generated during the accident. At least a portion of the water was retained on
site in lagoons, a condition which eventually led to detectable Sr-90 in ground water plus
contaminated soil. The site is currently undergoing cleanup.
July 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident
An error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality.
Robert Peabody, believing he was using a diluted uranium solution, accidentally put concentrated
solution into an agitation tank containing sodium carbonate. Peabody was exposed to 10,000rad
(100Gy) of radiation and died two days later. Ninety minutes after the criticality, a plant manager
and another administrator returned to the building and were exposed to 100rad (1Gy), but suffered
no ill effects.
[14][15]
October 5, 1966 INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration
nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a
zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel
assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment
vessel.
[16]
Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) INES Level needed location unknown loss of coolant
accident
The Soviet icebreaker Le. i. , the USSR.s first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a
major accident (possibly a meltdown exactly what happened remains a matter of
controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through
the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It
was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to
allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the
Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate
container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in
1970, serving until 1989.
May 1967 INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial
meltdown
87
14/ 01/ 2012
Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the
Chapelcross nuclear power station. Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was
repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004.
[17][18]
January 21, 1969 . INES Level: None - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion
A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in
a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building
and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No
injuries or fatalities resulted.
[19][20]
De-fuelling and partial dismantling occurred from 1969 to 1973. In 1988, the lowest caverns were
filled with concrete, and a regulatory permit was issued in December 1990. Currently, the archives
of the Canton of Vaud are located in the caverns.
[21]
1970.
December 7, 1975 . INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps' electrical supply circuits to test emergency shutoffs.
Instead of the expected automatic shutdown, a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which
damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor
construction in the Soviet-built reactor.
[22]
February 22, 1977 . INES Level 4 - Jaslovsk Bohunice, Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia) - Fuel
damaged
Operators neglected to remove moisture-absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before
loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel
integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area.
The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.
[23]
March 28, 1979 . INES Level 5
[ci.a.ion needed]
- Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United
States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown
at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9.3 mi) southeast of Harrisburg. While
the reactor was extensively damaged, on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than
annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem
(10 Sv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities.
Follow-up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.
[24][25][26]
See al. o: Three Mile I. land acciden.
1980.
March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orlans, France - Nuclear materials leak
88
14/ 01/ 2012
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 10
10
Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and
continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992.
[27]
March, 1981 INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Radioactive materials released into Sea of Japan +
Overexposure of workers
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during
repairs of the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant, violating the Japan Atomic Power Company's limit of
100 millirems (1 mSv) per day.
[28]
September 23, 1983 INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an
excursion of 310
17
fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of
gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17
people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad
(0.01 Gy).
[29]
pg103
[30]
April 26, 1986 INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion,
complete meltdown
An inadequate reactor safety system
[31]
led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe
steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly
cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal
cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The
explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of
Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in
addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion
Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi. (3,000 km.) and
deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN
agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of
casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.
See also: Chernobyl disaster
May 4, 1986 INES Level 3-5 (need ref) - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel
damaged
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an
experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel
pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the
reactor.
[32]
1990.
89
14/ 01/ 2012
April 6, 1993 . INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction
vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7
Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of
concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive
and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the
bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239
and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended
28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka
(pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported.
The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses
of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).
[33][34][35]
June, 1999 . INES Level 2
[36]
- Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead
withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika
Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Power Company who owned the reactor did not
report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.
[37]
September 30, 1999 . INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Inadequately trained part-time workers prepared a uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg
of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing
facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of
solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to
(neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other
workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable
limit.
[38][39][40][41]
2000.
April 10, 2003 . INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning
process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to
split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality.
Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131.
[42]
April 19, 2005 . INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid
90
14/ 01/ 2012
leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp
nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks
outside the plant.
[43][44]
November 2005 INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater
off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any
problems related to the release.
[45]
March 6, 2006 INES Level 2
[46]
- Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear
Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing
on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.
[47][48][49][50]
2010.
See also: Timeline of the Fakushima n. clea. acciden.
March 1120, 2011 - INES Level 7
[51][52]
(previously rating is 5
[53]
) as of April 12 (A final rating is
expected after the situation has been completely resolved).
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - partial meltdowns in multiple reactors
[54]
Main aicle: Fkhima Daiichi nclea diae
After the 2011 T. hoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the emergency power supply of the
Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant failed. This was followed by deliberate releases of
radioactive gas from reactors 1 and 2 to relieve pressure. On March 12, triggered by falling water
levels, a hydrogen explosion occurred at reactor 1, resulting in the collapse of the concrete outer
structure.
[55][56][57][58][59]
Although the reactor containment itself was confirmed to be
intact,
[60][61][62]
the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert (0.1015 rem) - an
amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year."
[63][64]
Residents of the
Fukushima area were advised to stay inside, close doors and windows, turn off air conditioning, and
to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs as well as not to drink tap water.
[65]
By
the evening of March 12, the exclusion zone had been extended to 20 kilometres (12 mi) around the
plant
[66]
and 70,000 to 80,000 people had been evacuated from homes in northern Japan.
[67]
A
second, nearly identical hydrogen explosion occurred in the reactor building for Unit 3 on March 14,
with similar effects.
[68]
A third explosion in the pressure suppression room of Unit 2
[69]
initially
was said not to have breached the reactors inner steel containment vessel,
[70]
but later reports
indicated that the explosion damaged the steel containment structure of Unit 2 and much larger
releases of radiation were expected than previously.
[69]
Disposed rods of reactor Unit 4 were stored outside the reactor in a separate pool which ran dry,
yielding fire and risk of serious contamination.
[71]
Staff was brought down from 800 Fukushima, who have been named the "Fukushima 50" by the press.
91
14/ 01/ 2012
34
92
14/ 01/ 2012
18
Belarus. These actions reduced radiation exposures and reduced the radiation related
health impacts of the accident.
Leukaemia, Solid Cancers and Circulatory Diseases
A number of epidemiological studies, including atomic bombing survivors, patients
treated with radiotherapy and occupationally exposed populations in medicine and the
nuclear industry, have shown that ionizing radiation can cause solid cancers and leukae-
mia (except CLL
4
). More recent fndings also indicate an increased risk oI cardiovascular
diseases in populations exposed at higher doses (e.g. atomic bombing survivors,
radiotherapy patients).
An increased risk of leukaemia associated
with radiation exposure from Chernobyl
was, therefore, expected among the popula-
tions exposed. Given the level of doses
received, however, it is likely that studies
of the general population will lack statisti-
cal power to identify such an increase,
although for higher exposed emergency
and recovery operation workers an increase
may be detectable. The most recent studies
suggest a two-fold increase in the incidence
of non-CLL leukaemia between 1986 and
1996 in Russian emergency and recovery
operation workers exposed to more than
150 mGy (external dose). On going studies
of the workers may provide additional
information on the possible increased risk
of leukaemia.
However, since the risk of radiation-induced leukaemia decreases several decades after
exposure, its contribution to morbidity and mortality is likely to become less signifcant
as time progresses.
There have been many post-Chernobyl studies of leukaemia and cancer morbidity in
the populations of contaminated areas in the three countries. Most studies, however,
had methodological limitations and lacked statistical power. There is therefore no
4
CLL is chronic lymphoid leukaemia that is not thought to be caused by radiation exposure.
93
14/ 01/ 2012
16
radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent
up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal
cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 mil-
lion persons residing in other contaminated areas, the doses are much lower and
any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference
of less than one per cent in cancer mortality.
Such increases would be very difficult to detect with available epidemiological
tools, given the normal variation in cancer mortality rates. So far, epidemiological
studies of residents of contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have not
provided clear and convincing evidence for a radiation-induced increase in general
population mortality, and in particular, for fatalities caused by leukaemia, solid
cancers (other than thyroid cancer), and non-cancer diseases.
However, among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 19922002
in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen
deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002.
Some radiation-induced increases in fatal leukaemia, solid cancers and circulatory
system diseases have been reported in Russian emergency and recovery opera-
tion workers. According to data from the Russian Registry, in 19911998, in the
cohort of 61 000 Russian workers exposed to an average dose of 107 mSv about
5% of all fatalities that occurred may have been due to radiation exposure. These
findings, however, should be considered as preliminary and need confirmation in
better-designed studies with careful individual dose reconstruction.
What diseases have already resulted or might occur in the future from
the Chernobyl radiation exposure?
Thyroid Cancer in Children
One of the principal radionuclides released by the Chernobyl accident was iodine-131,
which was signifcant Ior the frst Iew months. The thyroid gland accumulates iodine
from the blood stream as part of its normal metabolism. Therefore, fallout of radio-
active iodines led to considerable thyroid exposure of local residents through inhalation
and ingestion of foodstuffs, especially milk, containing high levels of radioiodine. The
thyroid gland is one of the organs most susceptible to cancer induction by radiation.
Children were found to be the most vulnerable population, and a substantial increase
in thyroid cancer among those exposed as children was recorded subsequent to the
accident.
94
14/ 01/ 2012
15
to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radio-
active fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated
fatalities did not occur.
Cancer mortality
It is impossible to assess reliably, with any
precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused
by radiation exposure due to Chernobyl
accident. Further, radiation-induced cancers
are at present indistinguishable from those
due to other causes.
An international expert group has made
projections to provide a rough estimate of
the possible health impacts of the accident
and to help plan the future allocation of
public health resources. These predictions
were based on the experience of other
populations exposed to radiation that have
been studied for many decades, such as
the survivors of the atomic bombing in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the
applicability of risk estimates derived
from other populations with different
genetic, life-style and environmental back-
grounds, as well as having been exposed
to much higher radiation dose rates, is
unclear. Moreover small differences in the
assumptions about the risks from exposure
to low level radiation doses can lead to
large differences in the predictions of the
increased cancer burden, and predictions
should therefore be treated with great
caution, especially when the additional
doses above natural background radiation
are small.
The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more
signifcant exposures (liquidators working in 19861987, evacuees, and residents oI
the most contaminated areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this
95
14/ 01/ 2012
12/19/11 Anti-nuclear movement in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encclopedia
1/8 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Australia
Ant i-nuclear movement.
Australia . Austria . Canada
France . Germany . India
Japan . Kazakhstan . New Zealand
Philippines . Spain
Switzerland Taiwan Turkey
United Kingdom United States
List of groups
List of protests by country
Anti-nuclear movement in Austr alia
Nuclear testing, uranium mining and export, and nuclear energy have often been the subject of public debate in Australia, and the anti-nuclear
movement in Australia has a long history. Its origins date back to the 1972. 73 debate over French nuclear testing in the Pacific and the 1976. 77
debate about uranium mining in Australia.
[1][2]
Several groups specifically concerned with nuclear issues were established in the mid-1970s, including the Movement Against Uranium Mining and
Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (CANE), cooperating with other environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Australian
Conservation Foundation.
[3][4]
A setback came in 1983 when the newly elected Labor Government failed to implement its stated policy of stopping
uranium mining.
[5]
But by the late 1980s, the price of uranium had fallen, and the costs of nuclear power had risen, and the anti-nuclear movement
seemed to have won its case. CANE disbanded itself in 1988.
[6]
About 2003, proponents of nuclear power advocated it as a solution to global warming and the Australian government began taking an interest.
Anti-nuclear campaigners and some scientists in Australia emphasised that nuclear power could not significantly substitute for other power sources,
and that uranium mining itself could become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
[7][8]
As of 2010, Australia has no nuclear power stations and the current Gillard Labor government is opposed to nuclear power for Australia.
[9]
Australia has three operating uranium mines at Olympic Dam (Roxby) and Beverley - both in South Australia's north - and at Ranger in the Northern
Territory. As of April 2009, construction has begun on South Australia's third uranium mine. the Honeymoon Uranium Mine.
[10]
Australia has no
nuclear weapons.
Contents
1 History
1.1 1950s and 1960s
1.2 1970s
1.3 1980s and 1990s
1.4 2000s
1.5 2010s
2 Ban on Nuclear Reactors
3 Issues
4 Public opinion
5 Active groups
6 Individuals
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography
10 External links
Histor y
1950s and 1960s
See also: Nuclear wapons tests in Australia
In 1952 the Australian Government established the Rum Jungle Uranium Mine 85 kilometres south of Darwin. Local aboriginal communities were
not consulted and the mine site became an environmental disaster.
[11]
Also in 1952, the Robert Menzies Liberal Government passed legislation, the "Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952", which allowed the British
Government access to isolated parts of Australia to undertake atmospheric nuclear tests. These tests were mainly conducted at Maralinga in South
Australia between 1955 and 1963, but the full legal and political implications of the testing program took decades to emerge. The secrecy which
surrounded the British testing program and the remoteness of the test sites meant that public awareness of the risks involved grew very slowly.
[12]
But as the "Ban the Bomb" movement gathered momentum in Western societies throughout the 1950s, so too did opposition to the British tests in
Australia. An opinion poll taken in 1957 showed 49 per cent of the Australian public were opposed to the tests and only 39 per cent in favour.
[12]
96
14/ 01/ 2012
Map showing nuclear test sites in Australia
Ranger Uranium Mine in Kakadu
National Park
Aerial view of the Ranger 3 site
located within Kakadu National Park.
In 1964, Peace Marches which featured "Ban the bomb" placards, were held in several
Australian capital cities.
[13][14]
In 1969, a 500 MW nuclear power plant was proposed for the Jervis Bay Territory,
200 km south of Sydney.
[3]
A local opposition campaign began, and the South Coast
Trades and Labour Council (covering workers in the region) announced that it would refuse
to build the reactor.
[15]
Some environmental studies and site works were completed, and
two rounds of tenders were called and evaluated, but in 1971 the Australian government
decided not to proceed with the project, citing economic reasons.
[3][16]
1970.
The 1972. 73 debate over French nuclear testing in the Pacific mobilised several groups,
including some trade unions.
[17]
In 1972 the International Court of Justice in a case launched
by Australia and New Zealand, ordered that the French cease atmospheric nuclear testing at
Mururoa atoll.
[18]
In 1974 and 1975 this concern came to focus on uranium mining in
Australia and several Friends of the Earth groups were formed.
[17]
The Australian
Conservation Foundation also began voicing concern about uranium mining and supporting the activities of
the grass-roots organisations. Concern about the environmental effects of uranium mining was a significant
factor and poor management of waste at an early uranium mine, Rum Jungle, led it to become a significant
pollution problem in the 1970s.
[17]
The Australian anti-nuclear movement also acquired initial impetus
from various individuals who publicly voiced concern about the nuclear option, such as nuclear scientists
Richard Temple and Rob Robotham, and poets Dorothy Green and Judith Wright.
[17]
The years 1976 and 1977 saw uranium mining become a major political issue, with the Ranger Inquiry
(Fox) report opening up a public debate about uranium mining.
[19]
Several groups specifically concerned
with nuclear issues were established, including the Movement Against Uranium Mining (founded in 1976)
and Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (formed in South Australia in 1976), cooperating with other
environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth (which came to Australia in 1975) and the Australian
Conservation Foundation (formed in 1975).
[4][19]
In November and December 1976, 7,000 people marched through the streets of Australian cities,
protesting against uranium mining. The Uranium Moratorium group was formed and it called for a five-
year moritorium on uranium mining. In April 1977 the first national demonstration co-ordinated by the
Uranium Moratorium brought around 15,000 demonstrators into the streets of Melbourne, 5,000 in
Sydney, and smaller numbers elsewhere.
[20]
A National signature campaign attracted over 250,000
signatures calling for a five-year moratorium. In August, another demonstration brought 50,000 people out
nationally and the opposition to uranium mining looked like a potential political force.
[20][21]
In 1977, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) national conference passed a motion in favour of an indefinite moratorium on uranium mining, and the
anti-nuclear movement acted to support the Labor Party and help it regain office. However, a setback for the movement occurred in 1982 when
another ALP conference overturned its anti-uranium policy in favour of a "one mine policy". After the ALP won power in 1983, the 1984 ALP
conference voted in favour of a "Three mine policy".
[22]
This referred to the then three existing uranium mines in Australia, Nabarlek, Ranger and
Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam, and articulated ALP support for pre-existing mines and contracts, but opposition to any new mining.
[23]
1980. and 1990.
Between 1979 and 1984, the majority of what is now Kakadu National Park was created, surrounding but not including the Ranger uranium mine.
Tension between mining and conservation values led to long running controversy around mining in the Park region.
The two themes for the 1980 Hiroshima Day march and rally in Sydney, sponsored by the Movement Against Uranium Mining (MAUM), were:
"Keep uranium in the ground" and "No to nuclear war." Later that year, the Sydney city council officially proclaimed Sydney nuclear-free, in an
action similar to that taken by many other local councils throughout Australia.
[24]
In the 1980s, academic critics (such as Jim Falk) discussed the "deadly connection" between uranium mining, nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons,
linking Australia's nuclear policy to nuclear proliferation and the "plutonium economy".
[6]
On Palm Sunday 1982, an estimated 100,000 Australians participated in anti-nuclear rallies in the nation's biggest cities. Growing year by year, the
rallies drew 350,000 participants in 1985.
[24]
The movement focused on halting Australia's uranium mining and exports, abolishing nuclear weapons,
removing foreign military bases from Australia's soil, and creating a nuclear-free Pacific. Public opinion surveys found that about half of Australians
97
14/ 01/ 2012
opposed uranium mining and export, as well as the visits of U.S. nuclear warships, that 72 percent thought the use of nuclear weapons could never
be justified, and that 80 percent favoured building a nuclear-free world.
[24]
The Nuclear Disarmament Party won a Senate seat in 1984, but soon faded from the political scene.
[25]
The years of the Hawke-Keating ALP
governments (1983. 1996) were characterised by an "uneasy standoff in the uranium debate". The ALP acknowledged community feeling against
uranium mining but was reluctant to move against the industry.
[26][27]
The 1986 Palm Sunday anti-nuclear rallies drew 250,000 people. In Melbourne, the seamen's union boycotted the arrival of foreign nuclear
warships.
[24]
Australia's only nuclear energy education facility, the former School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales, closed in
1986.
[28]
By the late 1980s, the price of uranium had fallen, and the costs of nuclear power had risen, and the anti-nuclear movement seemed to have won its
case. The Campaign Against Nuclear Energy disbanded itself in 1988,
[6]
two years after the Chernobyl Disaster.
The government policy preventing new uranium mines continued into the 1990s, despite occasional reviews and debate. Following protest marches
in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane during 1998, a proposed mine at Jabiluka was blocked.
[26][27]
Also in 1998, there was a proposal from an international consortium, Pangea Resources, to establish a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia.
The plan, to store 20 per cent of the world's spent nuclear fuel and weapons material, was "publicly condemned and abandoned".
[25][29]
2000.
In 2000, the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory and the Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam mine in South Australia continued to operate, but
Narbarlek Uranium Mine had closed. A third uranium mine, Beverley Uranium Mine in SA, was also operating. Several advanced projects, such as
Honeymoon in SA, Jabiluka in the Northern Territory and Yeelirrie in WA were on hold because of political and indigenous opposition.
[25][27]
In May 2000 there was an anti-nuclear demonstration at the Beverley Uranium Mine, which involved about 100 protesters. Ten of the protesters
were mistreated by police and were later awarded more than $700,000 in damages from the South Australian government.
[30]
Following the McClelland Royal Commission, a large clean-up was completed in outback South Australia in 2000, after nuclear testing at Maralinga
during the 1950s contaminated the region. The cleanup lasted three years, and cost over A$100 million, but there was controversy over the
methods used and success of the operation.
[25]
As uranium prices began rising from about 2003, proponents of nuclear power advocated it as a solution to global warming and the Australian
government began taking an interest. However, in June 2005, the Senate passed a motion opposing nuclear power for Australia.
[25]
Then, in
November 2006, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources released a pro-nuclear report into Australia's
uranium.
[31]
In late 2006 and early 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard made widely reported statements in favour of nuclear power, on
environmental grounds.
[26]
Faced with these proposals to examine nuclear power as a possible response to climate change, anti-nuclear campaigners and scientists in Australia
emphasised claims that nuclear power could not significantly substitute for other power sources, and that uranium mining itself could become a
significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
[7][8]
Anti-nuclear campaigns were given added impetus by public concern about the sites for possible
reactors: fears exploited by anti-nuclear power political parties in the lead-up to a national election in 2007.
[32][33]
The Rudd Labor government was elected in November 2007 and is opposed to nuclear power for Australia.
[2][9]
The anti-nuclear movement
continues to be active in Australia, opposing expansion of existing uranium mines,
[34]
lobbying against the development of nuclear power in
Australia, and criticising proposals for nuclear waste disposal sites, the main candidate being Muckaty station in the Northern Territory.
[35]
As of October 2009, the Australian government was continuing to plan for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. However, there has
been opposition from indigenous people, the NT government, and wider NT community.
[36]
In November 2009, about 100 anti-nuclear protesters
assembled outside the Alice Springs parliamentary sittings, urging the Northern Territory Government not to approve a nearby uranium mine site.
[37]
2010.
As of early April 2010, more than 200 environmentalists and indigenous people gathered in Tennant Creek to oppose a radioactive waste dump
being built on Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.
[38]
Western Australia has a significant share of the Australia's uranium reserves, but between 2002 and 2008, a state-wide ban on uranium mining was
in force. The ban was lifted when the Liberal Party was voted into power in the state and, as of 2010, many companies are exploring for uranium in
98
14/ 01/ 2012
Wester. A. stralia. One oI the industry's major players, the mining company BHP Billiton, plans to develop the Yeelirrie uranium project in 2011 in
a 17 billion dollar project.
[39]
Two other projects in Western Australia are Iurther advanced then BHP's Yeelirrie, these being the Lake Way
uranium project, which is pursued by Toro Energy and scheduled Ior production by 2013, and the Lake Maitland uranium project, pursued by
Mega Uranium, which has a proposed start-oI-production date oI 2012.
[40][41][42]
As oI late 2010, there are calls Ior Australians to debate whether the nation should adopt nuclear power as part oI its energy mix. Nuclear power is
seen to be "a divisive issue that can arouse deep passions among those Ior and against".
[28]
Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear emergency in Japan, where three nuclear reactors were damaged by explosions, Ian Lowe sees the
nuclear power option as being risky and unworkable Ior Australia. Lowe says nuclear power is too expensive, with insurmountable problems
associated with waste disposal and weapons proliIeration. It is also not a Iast enough response to address climate change. Lowe advocates
renewable energy which is "quicker, less expensive and less dangerous than nuclear".
[43]
In December 2011, the sale oI uranium to India was a contentious issue. MPs clashed over the issue and protesters were marched Irom Sydney's
convention centre beIore Prime Minister Julia Gillard's motion to remove a party ban on uranium sales to India was narrowly supported 206 votes
to 185. Long-time anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Garrett MP spoke against the motion.
[44]
Ban on Nuclear Reactor. .
Nuclear reactors are banned in Queensland
[45]
and Tasmania.
[46]
Currently, uranium mining is prohibited in New South Wales under the Uranium Prohibition Act oI 1986.
[47]
I. . e
See also: Nuclear power debate, Uranium mining debate, and Nuclear power in Australia
The case against nuclear power and uranium mining in Australia has been concerned with the environmental, political, economic, social and cultural
impacts oI nuclear energy; with the shortcomings oI nuclear power as an energy source; and with presenting a sustainable energy strategy. The most
prominent adverse impact oI nuclear power is seen to be its potential contribution towards proliIeration oI nuclear weapons. For example, the 1976
Ranger Inquiry report stated that "The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk oI nuclear war. This is the most
serious hazard associated with the industry".
[17]
The health risks associated with nuclear materials have also Ieatured prominently in Australian anti-nuclear campaigns. This has been the case
worldwide because oI incidents like the Chernobyl disaster, but Australian concerns have also involved speciIic local Iactors such as controversy
over the health eIIects oI nuclear testing in Australia and the South PaciIic, and the emergence oI prominent anti-nuclear campaigner Helen Caldicott,
who is a medical practitioner.
The economics oI nuclear power has been a Iactor in anti-nuclear campaigns, with critics arguing that such power is uneconomical in Australia,
[48]
particularly given the country's abundance oI coal resources.
From the perspective oI the anti-nuclear movement, most oI the problems with nuclear power today are much the same as in the 1970s. The
movement argues that nuclear reactor accidents remain a possibility and no convincing solution to the problem oI long-lived radioactive waste has
been proposed. Nuclear weapons proliIeration continues to occur, notably in Pakistan and North Korea, building on Iacilities and expertise Irom
civilian nuclear operations. The alternatives to nuclear power, eIIicient energy use and renewable energy (especially wind power), have been Iurther
developed and commercialised.
[26]
Pblic opinion
A 2009 poll conducted by the Uranium InIormation Centre Iound that Australians in the 40 to 55 years age group are the "most trenchantly
opposed to nuclear power".
[49]
This generation was raised during the Cold War, experienced the anti-nuclear movement oI the 1970s, witnessed
the 1979 partial meltdown oI the Three Mile Island reactor in the USA, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It was the generation which was also
subject to cultural inIluences including Ieature Iilms such as the "nuclear industry conspiracies" The China S. ndrome and Silkwood and the
apocalyptic Dr Strangelove. Younger people are "less resistant" to the idea oI nuclear power Ior Australia.
[49]
Indigenous land owners have consistently opposed uranium mining and have spoken out about the adverse impact it has on their communities.
[11]
Acie gop
Anti-Nuclear Alliance oI Western Australia
[50]
99
14/ 01/ 2012
Austral.. n Conservation Foundation
[51]
Australian Nuclear Free Alliance
[52][53][54]
Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle
[55]
EnergyScience
[56]
Friends oI the Earth Australia
[57]
Greenpeace Australia PaciIic
[58]
Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta
[59]
Mineral Policy Institute
Peace Organisation oI Australia
The Australia Institute
[60]
The Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service Inc.
[61]
The Wilderness Society
[62][63]
Individuals
There are several prominent Australians who have publicly expressed anti-nuclear views:
Dorothy Auchterlonie
David Bradbury (Iilm maker)
Eileen Kampakuta Brown
Kevin Buzzacott
Helen Caldicott
Joseph Camilleri
[49][64]
Ian Cohen
Mark DiesendorI
Jim Falk
Peter Garrett
Jim Green (activist)
Margaret Holmes
Jacqui Katona
Sandra Kanck
Ian Lowe
Scott Ludlam
Yvonne Margarula
Dee Margetts
Jillian Marsh
Brian Martin (proIessor)
Kerry Nettle
Mia Pepper
[65][66]
Nancy Shelley
Jo Vallentine
Patrick White
Stuart White
Bill Williams
[67][68]
Eileen Wani WingIield
See also
Australian Uranium Association
Clean Energy Future Group
History oI the anti-nuclear movement
International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliIeration and Disarmament
List oI anti-nuclear groups
List oI Australian inquiries into uranium mining
Lists oI nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
Renewable energy commercialization
Renewable energy in Australia
Say Yes demonstrations
Refer ences
1. ^ Green, Jim (26 August 1998). Australia's anti-nuclear movement: a short history (http://www.greenleIt.org.au/1998/330/20531) Green Left Online.
Retrieved 15 December 2010.
2. ^
a

b
Koutsoukis, Jason (25 November 2007). Rudd romps to historic win (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/24/1195753376406.html) The
Age. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
3. ^
a

b

c
McLeod, Roy (1995). "Resistance to Nuclear Technology: Optimists, Opportunists and Opposition in Australian Nuclear History" in Martin
Bauer (ed) Resistance to New Technolog. , Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-173.
4. ^
a

b
Hutton, Drew and Connors, Libby (1999). A Histor. of the Australian Environmental Movement, Cambridge University Press.
100
14/ 01/ 2012
1/2/12 First Analysis of Cancer Incidence and Occupational Radiation Exposure Ba
1/12 aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.full
+
O. ford Journals Medicine American Journal of Epidemiolog. Volume 153, Issue 4 Pp. 309-318.
Amer ican J our nal of Epidemiolog.
aje.o. fordjournals.org
Am. J. Epidemiol. (2001) 153 (4): 309-318. doi: 10.1093/aje/153.4.309
First Anal\ sis of Cancer Incidence and
Occupational Radiation Eposure Based on the
National Dose Registr of Canada
W. N. Sont

1

, J. M. Zielinski

2

, J. P. Ashmor e

1

, H. Jiang

3

, D. Kr ewski

4

, M. E. Fair

5

,
P. R. Band

2

and E. G. L. tour neau

1
A. .ho. Affilia.ion.
Received August 19, 1999.
Accepted August 10, 2000.
AbVWac
A cohort study was conducted to investigate the relation between cancer
incidence and occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. Records containing
dose information from 1951 to 1988 for 191,333 persons were extracted from
the National Dose Registry of Canada. The records were linked to the Canadian
Cancer Data Base, with incidence data from 1969 to 1988. Standardized
incidence ratios were calculated using Canadian cancer incidence rates stratified
by age, sex, and calendar year. Excess relative risks were obtained from
internally based dose-response analyses. The following significant results were
found for males and females combined: a deficit in the standardized incidence
ratio for all cancers combined; elevated standardized incidence ratios for thyroid
cancer and melanoma; and elevated excess relative risks for rectum, leukemia,
lung, all cancers combined, all except lung, and all except leukemia. For males,
cancers of the colon, pancreas, and testis also showed significantly elevated
excess relative risks. The specific cancer types listed above have been
implicated in previous studies on occupational exposure to ionizing radiation,
except for testis, colon, and melanoma, while the findings on thyroid cancer
from previous studies are inconclusive. The thyroid standardized incidence
ratios in this study are highly significant, but further investigation is needed to
assess the possibility of association with occupational radiation exposure.
Ke or ds incidence neoplasms occupational exposure radiation
The association between cancer and exposure to ionizing radiation has been well
documented (1). Evidence for this association is derived mainly from data on
atomic bomb survivors and from patients who, a few decades ago, received high
doses of therapeutic radiation for diseases other than cancer. Associations
between ionizing radiation and specific types of cancer, particularly leukemia,
have also been well established. These results, especially for the atomic bomb
survivors, are based on high exposures at high dose rates.
There remains considerable uncertainty on how to extrapolate radiation cancer
risks to low doses and low dose rates. Studies on occupational exposures,
especially large-scale cohort studies, can provide useful information in this
regard. The main challenge is to find a sufficiently large cohort for which
accurate dose information is available, with a sufficient period of follow-up to
101
14/ 01/ 2012
40
102
14/ 01/ 2012
Commentary
Depleted uranium and radiation-induced lung cancer
and leukaemia
R F MOULD, MSc, PhD
41 Ewhurst Avenue, Sanderstead, South Croydon, Surrey CR2 0DH, UK
Reports of leukaemias and other cancers
among servicemen who took part in the 1991
Gulf War or in the more recent operations in the
Balkans are of continuing interest, as is the
possibility, however slight, that depleted uranium
(DU) is one of the causative factors. This
commentary includes the results of a UK epi-
demiological study on the mortality of Gulf War
veterans and, although not containing informa-
tion on DU exposure, gives data on overall levels
of mortality and therefore carries more weight
than anecdotal reports. Also included are brief
summaries on radiation-induced lung cancer in
uranium workers as well as radiation-induced
leukaemia in Japanese atomic bomb survivors and
patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated using
X-rays. This commentary concludes with a cri-
tique of Iraqi cancer statistics as well as giving
information on environmental contamination in
Kosovo and the use of DU ammunition.
Uranium and depleted uranium
The long-lived naturally occurring element
uranium has three radionuclides. It has been
used since the 1940s principally in the atomic
energy industry, where reactor fuel rods are
composed of rened
235
U (half-life 704610
6
years), and the waste product from this rening
is DU, which is predominantly
238
U (half-life
4470610
6
years). Another radionuclide is
234
U
(half-life 245 000 years). The relative abundances
of
238
U,
235
U and
234
U are, respectively, 99.2745%,
0.7200% and 0.0055%. Typically, DU contains
some 0.2% of the ssionable
235
U. The density of
metallic uranium is 19.05 g cm
23
, higher than
that of lead (11.3 g cm
23
).
Uses of DU
Owing to the high density of metallic uranium,
DU has been used for the last 20 years in the
manufacture of armour and armour piercing
shells in several countries. It has also been used
as counterweights in wide-body aircraft such as
the DC-10 and the Boeing 747, and for shielding
in teletherapy machines. Prior to this use of DU,
in 1953 the British Journal of Radiology [1],
describing a modication to a radium bomb to
accommodate a
60
Co source, was the rst to
publish on the use of uranium for radiotherapy
shielding.
Pyrophoricity
Uranium metal is combustible and readily
ignites when nely divided in air, a property
known as pyrophoricity. Hence, when used
militarily, or when present in an air crash or a
erce re, the uranium may form large quantities
of dust containing a mixture of uranium oxides
that can be ingested or inhaled. For example, the
Boeing 747 that crashed into a block of ats in
Amsterdam in 1992 carried 282 kg of DU
counterweights but only 130 kg was recovered
and the Dutch commission of enquiry concluded
that the remaining amount had been released in
the form of particles that could have been inhaled
by rescue workers and the local population [2].
Chemical toxicity
A detailed toxicological prole for uranium has
been published by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry [3]; information
is also available from the World Health Organ-
isation in their recent report [4]. Both reports
show that, without doubt, the major hazard from
DU is chemical rather than radiological.
The kidney is the organ primarily affected by
ingested uranium [35] and dysfunction caused by
uranium chemical toxicity has been proven in
both animal and human populations. In terms of
Gulf War syndrome, which is described as a
spectrum of symptoms and medical disorders, not
only those related to the kidney, there are likely to
be a combination of causative factors and not just
the single factor of DU exposure. One study [6]
has concluded that uranium intake in the range
0.0049 mg kg
21
body weight affects kidney
function in a dose-dependent manner.
Received 23 January 2001 and in nal form 10 May
2001, accepted 16 May 2001.
E-mail: richardfmould@hotmail.com
The British Journal of Radiology, 74 (2001), 677683
E
2001 The British Institute of Radiology
677 The British Journal of Radiology, August 2001
103
14/ 01/ 2012
Measurement of uranium in urine
The standard test to determine the presence of
uranium in the body is a urine test. In a study of
29 DU-exposed American Gulf War veterans and
22 non-exposed veterans, spot samples and 24 h
samples were collected and analysed for uranium
determination, and it was found that there was a
high correlation of spot collection measurements
when corrected for creatinine concentration with
the 24 h creatinine standardized collection [7].
However, the correlation declines with urinary
uranium values below 0.05 mg g
21
creatinine. This
suggests that reliance on spot samples for
presumed low level uranium exposed populations
may not be advisable [7]. This is an important
nding for screening programmes and it is
generally regarded that the most reliable data
from urine analysis are obtained from samples
collected over a 24-h period and corrected for
creatinine excretion [8].
To demonstrate that exposure to DU has taken
place it is necessary to determine the ratio of the
three uranium isotopes in urine; if there is DU
present there will be an unusually low proportion
of
235
U since DU contains only some 0.2% of this
isotope whereas natural uranium contains 0.72%.
Isotope ratio analysis can be performed using
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICPMS) [9], and it is suggested that the limit of
detection is of the order of 1035 ng l
21
[8].
However, the most sophisticated form of uranium
isotope analysis, able to quantify smaller uranium
isotope concentrations than any other test, is
thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS).
TIMS is used in geochemical research but has yet
to be validated for biological specimens, whereas
ICPMS has already been validated [8].
Measurement of uranium in bone
As a result of its ionic characteristics, UO
2
2+
competes with Ca
2+
for certain transport mechan-
isms and is rapidly accumulated in bone [10].
Approximately 66% of the total body burden of
uranium is estimated to reside in the skeleton
[1113], with clearance half-lives reported in the
range 3005000 days based on a two compart-
ment pharmacokinetic model [14, 15]. Recent
advances in the determination of trace metals in
bone using K X-ray uorescence have suggested a
role for this technique in uranium analysis [16].
Radiological toxicity
There does exist, albeit small compared with
chemical toxicity, a radiological toxicity, which,
because of the relatively low doses experienced by
military veterans, is difcult to quantify as indi-
vidual radiation dose measurements at the levels
required have not yet become available. It has
recently been suggested that electron paramag-
netic resonance dosimetry of tooth enamel can be
used for measurements down to 20 mSv [17].
Radiation doses will be dependent on several
factors, such as the type and pathway of exposure
(i.e. external or internal), the situation (e.g. within
tanks hit by DU shells or during DU artillery
shell manufacture) and whether the DU has
lodged in the lungs as oxides or as uranium
metal. The UK Defence Committee 7th Report
Gulf Veterans Illnesses [18] states When DU
hits a target a ne aerosol of ceramic DU is
formed. Many of the particles, gures vary from
46% to 70%, are less than 10 micron. This means
that they are readily inhaled. Particles under 2.5
micron are particularly dangerous as they enter
deep into the lungs.
Radiation-induced lung cancer
Uranium miners and radon exposure
Studies of several groups of uranium miners
have been conducted over many years in the
USA, Canada and the Czech Republic
1
. Data
from these studies have been the subject of several
detailed reviews, including that by the USA
National Research Council Committee on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation [19]. In
common with earlier reviews, this committee
concluded that exposure to radon progeny in
uranium mines was a cause of lung cancer. In
addition, studies on uranium miners have been
running in France and Australia, but for a shorter
period than studies in the countries quoted above.
Uranium mining took place in the former East
Germany (the German Democratic Republic
(DDR)) and, before the re-unication of Germany
in 1989, some 90% of those who died in the DDR
received autopsies. The gure in the former West
Germany (the German Federal Republic) was
nearer 10%. An extensive central pathology
archive therefore exists for the Wismut mining
company in the area of Thuringia and Saxony
1
Some British Journal of Radiology readers will be
aware that the modern-day Czech Republic includes the
silver mines at Joachimsthal (Figure 1) from which
Marie and Pierre Curie obtained the many tons of
pitchblende uranium ore that were processed to
discover the radioactive elements polonium and
radium in 1898. The mines were in use from the mid-
12th century, also producing bismuth, cobalt, nickel
and tungsten, and after World War II the Soviet
authorities re-opened them to mine uranium, with
many of the miners being Stalins political prisoners.
The name Joachimsthal, now Jacymov, is associated
with a silver coin, the thaler, of which more than two
million were minted in 15201528. The currency name
dollar is directly derived from this ancient name.
R F Mould
104
14/ 01/ 2012
(Figure 2) [20]. This unique archive contains
tissue samples and protocols of 28 995 autopsy
cases, of which 5974 were lung tumours, covering
the years 195794. This archive has been analysed
for three time periods for cohorts of 10 303, 2284
and 227, characterized by radon exposure
2
ranges
in units of WLMs per year of 30300, 5100 and
14 [21].
The years 194654 were characterized by high
rates of radon exposure and primitive mining
techniques, resulting in a high dust burden; during
195570 there were improved working conditions,
including articial ventilation; and in 197189 the
radon exposure was within recommended inter-
national limits. The percentage of lung cancers for
the three periods were 34.0%, 22.8% and 17.2%,
respectively, and the percentage of non-lung
cancers were 15.7%, 20.9% and 18.9% [23].
Uranium-associated industries and uranium
exposure
A recent report by a committee of the United
States National Academy of Sciences Institute of
Medicine [24] on Gulf War and Health reviewed
studies of several uranium-associated industries:
uranium mill workers, uranium enrichment work-
ers, uranium processing and laboratory workers,
and nuclear materials fabrication workers. The
committee concluded that there is limited/
suggestive evidence of no association between
exposure to uranium and lung cancer at cum-
ulative internal dose levels lower than 200 mSv or
25 cGy. However, there is inadequate/insufcient
evidence to determine whether an association does
or does not exist between exposure to uranium
and lung cancer at higher levels of cumulative
exposure.
The committee [24] also repeated the BEIR VI
[19] opinion regarding studies on uranium miners
that the effect of uranium is difcult to interpret
because the miners were simultaneously exposed
to radon progeny. Another confounding factor
when trying to determine the relative effect of
uranium is the lack of direct information on
individual workers exposure to cigarette smoke.
Radiation-induced leukaemia
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It is known from atomic bomb data that
leukaemia can be radiation induced. Estimates
from the Japanese data [25] showed that the
latency period was some 2.5 years, an increased
incidence was suspected during the following 2.5
years and this was clearly observed 5 years after
the atomic tomb. However, since comprehensive
follow-up of the Japanese atomic tomb survivors
did not begin until 5 years after the bombings,
these data cannot be solely relied upon to infer a
latency for leukaemia.
Ankylosing spondylitis
Ankylosing spondylitis is a non-malignant
disease that has been treated using X-rays. In
1965, Brown and Doll [26] investigated the
mortality from cancer and from other causes in
a series of patients from 81 radiotherapy centres
treated between 1935 and 1954. They reported an
excess of deaths from leukaemia and aplastic
anaemia following treatment and that deaths
attributed to cancers in heavily irradiated areas
increased approximately two-fold at 615 years
following treatment. A further analysis of this
patient population was made in 1982 by Smith
and Doll [27], who took into account estimated
organ radiation doses for 14 111 spondylitics
treated by a single course of X-rays.
The most recent reference to leukaemia in this
population was by Weiss et al in 1995 [28]. These
authors found after follow-up to 1 January 1992
that leukaemia-related deaths among the irra-
diated patients was almost three times that
expected from national rates. They also found
that the ratio of observed to expected deaths for
leukaemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leuk-
aemia (CLL)) was greatest in the period 15 years
after initial treatment. In addition, using a linear-
exponential model they estimated that the average
predicted relative risk of leukaemia other than
CLL in the period 125 years after exposure to a
uniform dose of 1 Gy was 7.00.
Lung cancer and leukaemia in Gulf War
veterans
Reported cases of lung cancer and leukaemia in
veterans are mainly anecdotal and not the result
of well designed epidemiological surveys. No
signicantly higher than expected incidence of
these two neoplasms has yet been proven. The
report of the United States National Academy of
Sciences Institute of Medicine [24] and their
conclusions regarding exposure to uranium, lung
cancer and internal dose levels has already been
referred to. This report does not even list
leukaemia in its index as a topic of importance,
emphasizing that no evidence of a link between
DU and leukaemia has yet been found.
American friendly re victims
A surveillance study is in progress for American
Gulf War veterans who were victims of friendly
2
Cumulative radiation exposure given in working level
months (WLMs), where a working level (WL) is dened
as 1.3 6 10
5
MeV of potential alpha energy per litre of
air. 1 WLM equals exposure to 1 WL for 170 h [22].
Commentary: Depleted uranium and radiation-induced cancer
105
14/ 01/ 2012
re from DU ammunition. The study initially
included 30 veterans but this has now risen to 60.
Approximately 15 veterans still have DU frag-
ments in their soft tissues and are excreting raised
concentrations of uranium in their urine. None
has lung cancer or leukaemia [29, 30].
Mortality study of Gulf War veterans
In a report by Macfarlane et al [31] on
mortality among some 53 000 UK Gulf War
veterans, with follow-up to 31 March 1999, it was
found that although the veterans experienced
higher mortality rates than a comparison group,
this excess mortality rate is very small and
does not approach statistical signicance. An
equivalent-size comparison group (the Era cohort)
comprised personnel who were not deployed but
who were matched for age, sex, rank, service and
level of tness. The excess mortality is mainly
related to accidents rather than disease. This
pattern is consistent both with American veterans
of the Gulf War and veterans from other conicts.
The study has now been updated to 30
September 2000 [32], but at the time of writing
data have only been presented at a conference.
The data show little change from the earlier
follow-up [31] and the excess deaths attributed to
accidental causes, motor vehicle accidents in
particular, are still present. This update also
shows that there are fewer deaths due to
neoplasms among the Gulf cohort than among
the Era cohort. In this latest follow-up, Blatchley
et al [32] have presented for the rst time a
breakdown of the different types of cancer
(Table 1). However, because the number of
deaths due to individual cancers is so small, it
is too early to draw any conclusions other than
that there is no evidence at present to claim that
there are excessive deaths due to cancers among
UK Gulf War veterans.
Iraqi cancer statistics
Iraqi statistics have never been included in the
regularly published volumes by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer Cancer Incidence
in Five Continents [33] and the only published
data currently available are in the report of a
conference held in Baghdad in 1998. This includes
the combined workload statistics from Mosul
hospitals for periods before and after the Gulf
War (198990 and 199798) and some data for
the Iraqi military [34].
Table 1. Deaths due to malignant neoplasms: 1 April 1991 to 30 September 2000 (reproduced from reference [32])
ICD 9 code Neoplasm site Study cohort
Gulf Era
140208 All sites 66 72
141 Tongue 1 1
142 Salivary glands 1 1
146 Oropharynx 1 0
150 Oesophagus 3 0
151 Stomach 1 3
153 Colon 3 8
154 Rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus 1 1
155 Liver and intrahepatic bile ducts 2 1
157 Pancreas 2 2
161 Larynx 1 0
162 Trachea, bronchus and lung 11 16
163 Pleura 1 0
164 Thymus, heart and mediastinum 0 1
170 Bone and articular cartilage 3 2
171 Connective and other soft tissue 2 0
172 Melanoma of skin 3 2
174 Female breast 0 3
175 Male breast 1 0
183 Ovary and other uterine adnexa 0 1
185 Prostate 0 1
189 Kidney and other and unspecied urinary organs 1 1
191 Brain 11 11
192 Other and unspecied parts of the nervous system 0 1
193 Thyroid 1 0
199 Neoplasm without specication of site 3 7
200 Lymphosarcoma and reticulosarcoma 0 1
201 Hodgkins disease 2 1
202 Other neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue 5 3
204 Lymphoid leukaemia 1 1
205 Myeloid leukaemia 5 3
R F Mould
106
14/ 01/ 2012
Patient workload statistics in Mosul
The total number of all cancer registrations in
Mosul hospitals for the two periods 198990 and
199798 were 200 and 894, respectively. Numbers
for lung cancer in males were, respectively, 20.5%
(25/122) and 25.7% (129/501) and for females they
were 2.6% (2/78) and 3.6% (14/393). Corres-
ponding gures for leukaemia for males and
females combined were 11% (22/200) for 198990
and 10.6% (95/894) for 199798. These are
percentage workload gures and cannot be
equated to cancer incidence gures per 100 000
population for Mosul and its surrounding region.
The percentages are similar for the two time
periods and there could be several reasons for the
increase in absolute numbers. Certainly they
cannot be correlated with DU exposure as is
sometimes reported in the media. Following a
visit to Iraq, Sikora [35] has commented in
general on these increases: stomach cancer is
increasing probably due to poor diets and the lack
of food storage facilities and there is an
apparent threefold increase in leukaemia in the
southern provinces, the sites of the major battle-
elds of the Gulf War.
Military statistics
The 1998 report [34] also gives the annual
absolute numbers of lung cancers for 199197 in
military personnel exposed to a DU explosion
as 4, 6, 39, 40, 41, 40 and 40, and for leukaemia as
10, 28, 45, 53, 65, 70 and 40. The cohort studied,
including military and non-military, totalled 1425.
However, although this is described as a case
control study, the control data are not included in
the report, the case and control populations are
not properly dened and the data quality must be
regarded as poor.
Possible inuence of chemical carcinogens
The increase in the number of Iraqi cancer
registrations may be due in part to exposure to
chemical carcinogens. Of relevance to war is the
agent benzene, which has been established as an
occupational cause of acute myeloid leukaemia
[36]. This is relevant on battleelds since the
advent of mechanized warfare because the res-
idues include partially burnt hydrocarbons from
fuels, explosives, propellants and plastics. For the
Gulf War, there is also the Kuwait oil res to take
into consideration. The retreating Iraqi forces set
the Kuwait oil elds alight and the smoke
generated was carried by the prevailing winds
over Iraq. The types and quantities of soot
formed were known to have caused lung
damage [36] and, in addition, the soot would
have contained large quantities of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, known carcinogens. It
is not known where Iraqi chemical and biological
weapons stockpiles were sited and whether any
were blown up, but certainly chemical warfare
was used in the IraqIran war of 198188, sulphur
mustard being one of the agents. The long-term
effects of exposure are known to include damage
to the immune system, birth defects and elevated
incidences of leukaemia and lymphoma.
Depleted uranium in the Balkans
In the MarchJune 1999 Kosovo conict, oil
reneries, fuel storage facilities and fertiliser
plants were extensively damaged and the subse-
quent environmental contamination will have to
be considered when the causes of health effects
are assessed. Environmental hot spots were
found in four cities: Pancevo, Kragujevac, Novi
Sad and Bor. It was also reported that it has
occasionally been difcult to separate some of the
earlier environment and health problems from
those caused as a result of the recent conict
[37]. Signicant contamination was found from
mercury, dioxin and other toxic pollutants, some
of which had built up over a period of years.
DU shells were red from American A-10
aircraft, but it is not known [37] whether the
cruise missiles that were red contained DU.
According to the United Nations Environment
Programme and the United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements Balkans Task Force [37], the
present state of knowledge regarding DU use in
Kosovo and possibly in Serbia is that neither the
quantity of DU weapons used, nor the locations
of any targets hit by DU weapons, are known.
However, some information was later provided
in a February 2000 letter to the UN Secretary
General from the NATO Secretary General in
which it was stated that 31 000 rounds of DU
ammunition were used, containing a total of
8401 kg of DU, but also that at this moment it is
impossible to state accurately every location
where DU ammunition was used.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr Pat Doyle, Mr
Richard Guthrie, Dr Gennadi Souchkevitch and
Dr Horst Wesch for valuable discussions and for
providing useful references, and Mr Nick
Blatchley for a copy of his conference poster
presentation including data on cancer mortality of
Gulf veterans [32] from which Table 1 has been
reproduced. I am also grateful to Brigadier Louis
Lillywhite for the Ministry of Defence document
on the Voluntary Screening Programme [8].
107
14/ 01/ 2012
35. Sikora K. Cancer services are suffering in Iraq. Br
Med J 1999;318:203.
36. Austin A, Delzell E, Cole P. Benzene and
leukaemia. A review of the literature and a risk
assessment. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:41939.
37. United Nations Environment Programme and the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
(Habitat) Balkans Task Force. The Kosovo conict
consequences for the environment and human
settlements. Geneva: UNEP/UNCHS, 1999.
Figure 1. Woodcut dated 1518
showing a doctor and nurse attend-
ing a sick miner in Joachims-
thals hospital. Mining activity
can be seen in the background.
In the early 1780s the pharma-
cist Martin Klaproth, who later
became Professor of Chemistry
at Berlins Royal Mining Acade-
my, discovered that the black
mineral could be used to give
glass a brilliant yellow colour
and he was also convinced that
it contained a new metal. This
coincided with the 1781 discov-
ery by William Herschel of a
new planet in the solar system,
Uranus, and uranium was thus
named in honour of the planet
by Klaproth. (Courtesy of Dr
Fathi Habashi and Dr Adrian
Thomas.)
Figure 2. The Schneeberg mines in the ore mountains (Erzgebirge) of Saxony. The photograph was taken circa
194647 in the period known as the wild years when the mining techniques were primitive. In German textbooks
on the aetiology of lung cancer, as far back as 1879 [21] the term Schneeberg lung cancer is mentioned and the
ore Pechblende, dumped in vast quantities on slag heaps as a waste material, obtained its name because of Pech
used in the context of bad luck. (Courtesy of Dr Horst Wesch.)
108
14/ 01/ 2012
1

NUCLEAR INFORMATION
AND RESOURCE SERVICE
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912
301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291
nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

NIRS Briefing Paper

ATOMIC RADIATION IS MORE HARMFUL TO WOMEN

A woman is at significantly greater risk of suffering and dying from radiation-induced cancer
than a man who gets the same dose of ionizing radiation. This is news because data in the report
on the biological effects of ionizing radiation published in 2006 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS)
1
has been under-reported. It is more often acknowledged that children are at
higher risk of disease and death from radiation, but it is rarely pointed out that the regulation of
radiation and nuclear activity (worldwide) ignores the disproportionately greater harm to both
women and children.
2

The goal of this briefing paper is to help the lay reader understand the data on radiation impacts
to women presented in the NAS radiation report. Other researchers indicate that the effects may
be even greater than the NAS findings.
3
This is because the NAS report covers only radiation
doses that are from sources outside the body (gamma and X-rays)--leaving out doses from
radioactivity taken inside the body. These internal effects result from contamination inhaled in
air, and ingested food and water and confirm that the overall assessment by the NAS is not
complete.

Nonetheless, the NAS report is stunning enough: it finds that harm to women (cancer) is 50%
higher than the comparable harm to men from radiation doses that fall within the legal limit to
the public over a lifetime. Lets be clear: radiation kills men--but it kills significantly more
women. Both cancer incidence and death are 50% higher for women. Non-cancer health impacts
were not included in the analysis.

NAS also looked at a second group receiving annual radiation dose levels that were ten times
higher than the first group (still under the legal limits for a nuclear worker) during ages 18 - 65,
as might occur from occupational exposures or adults living in contaminated zones like parts of
Japan, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Scotland, Australia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, U.S. (and other
contaminated zones). The reported incidence of cancer in women in this group is also 50%

1
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII, Phase 2 report, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation, published by the National Academy Press in 2006, Washington, DC.
2
The background for some recommendations include calculations of the different radiation effects on women and children but
the final, allowable doses to the public do not incorporate this information.
3
ECRR European Committee on Radiation Risk reports 2003 and 2010 http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf ;
Independent researchers include the towering giants, Dr John Gofman, Dr Rosalie Bertell, Dr Alice Stewart and Dr Steven Wing
in the United States and an even larger circle in Europe and Russia.
109
14/ 01/ 2012
2

higher when compared to men who got the same dose level. Women in this group were 40%
more likely to die of their cancer than men in this group. The overall cancer rate (both incidence
and mortality for both men and women) is higher in this more highly exposed group. For more
details on this data
4
see An Explanation section below.

The fact that this information has not been widely reported has deprived women of our right to
know about this threat and protect ourselves from this harm. In addition to the right to know,
women have the right to protection. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under
the law. International allowable radiation levels do not reflect disproportionate harm to
women or the extent to which they say they do, they are not protective.

In the U.S. it may be necessary to depart from the international radiation regime in order to
deliver constitutional rights to the more than 150 million females in the United States.

Further, this situation violates the Right to Free Prior and Informed Consent as recognized
throughout the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international
human rights instruments, norms and standards;
5
particularly Article 19:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned
through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and
informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative
measures that may affect them.
To our knowledge, no women, indigenous or otherwise, have given informed consent to a
striking lack of protection from ionizing radiation.

Children
It has long been understood that children and the unborn are at greater risk from exposure to
ionizing radiation than adults of either gender. During the rapid cell division in growing young
bodies DNA is more vulnerable to damage from radiation. It is more difficult to find reports on
gender-specific data comparing differences in harm to boys and girls or to embryos exposed to
ionizing radiation.
6

No Safe Dose
It is vital to keep in mind that there is no safe dose of radiation to anyone of either gender, or
any age.
7
This is because any radioactive emission has the potential to cause damage that over
time becomes cancer. Cancer is harm--and many cancers have the potential to be lethal. The cells
of our bodies have repair mechanisms that in some cases can reverse the damage caused by
radiation--but the amount of exposure, type of exposure (internal, external), timing of exposure
and presence of other carcinogens and stressors impact this function. There is evidence that

4
[See Note 1] Table 12D-3 on page 312 of the BEIR VII report called Lifetime Attributable Risk of Solid Cancer Incidence
and Mortality. The original is available on-line from the National Academy press at:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=312
5
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13
September 2007, posted on-line at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html
6
See Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims web posted at: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationhome.htm and
included in Transforming Terror, Remembering the Soul of the World 2011, edited by Susan Griffin and Karin Lofthus
Carrington, University of California Press (p 34 36).
7
All the BEIR reports of the National Academy of Science affirm this finding. The Environmental Protection Agency states in
the Safe Drinking Water Standards that there is no safe concentration of any radioactive material. The radiation standards of the
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission are also based on the linear no threshold model which states that in order to have zero
risk, there must be zero dose.
110
14/ 01/ 2012
3

individual bodies vary in capacity to carry out correct repair. It is not clear if there is a gender
difference in the repair mechanism, but the NAS findings underscore that should be investigated.

Not Only Cancer
Radiation harm includes not only cancer and leukemia, but reduced immunity and also reduced
fertility, increases in other diseases including heart disease, birth defects including heart defects,
other mutations (both heritable and not). When damage is catastrophic to a developing embryo
spontaneous abortion or miscarriage of a pregnancy may result.
8

Precaution
It is not clear whether further research is being done to unravel the basis for disproportionate
radiation impacts on women; however, the Principle of Precaution dictates that we protect
first, study second.

Increased harm to women is not fully understood but it is known that reproductive tissue is more
sensitive to radiation damage, and females have a larger mass of reproductive tissues than males.
There are multiple, complex factors that make reproductive tissue unique, and also multiple,
complex modes of radiological damage. The Principle of Precaution dictates that protective
action must be taken once a potential (in this case actual and ongoing) harm is identified.
Research may follow, but precaution dictates that protective action not be postponed pending
future research results.

Radiation is a Privileged Pollutant
The worlds radiation standards were originally developed to allow exposure rather than to
prevent it. This makes sense given the historical context: the need for such regulation arose in the
early 20
th
Century when exposure to human-concentrated or human-generated radioactivity was
rare. The Manhattan Project, the all-out national effort to develop the first atomic bombs, was
one of the original drivers pushing the development of permissible radiation exposure levels.
It is also the origin of assuming the individual receiving a radiation dose is a male--a Manhattan
Project worker. With the advent of nuclear energy and the facilities that produce nuclear fuel and
handle waste, these standards have become evermore generalized to a larger and larger public.

The current limits for most industrial radiation in the U.S. allow fatal cancer among members of
the general public at a rate that is between 300--3000 times higher than the legal rate of harm
from most other industrial hazards.

A hazardous industry has traditionally been defined as one that causes cancer in one individual in
a million. The Environmental Protection Agencys goals for clean-up of contamination on
industrial Super Fund sites is a risk of one in a million exposed getting cancer, with exceptions
down to 1 cancer in 10,000 people exposed. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission now
allows radiation levels to the general public that it projects would result in 1 fatal cancer in
every 286 people (well, actually, adult men) exposed over a lifetime.
9
However, this is apples
compared to oranges. EPA regulations reference cancer incidence. NRC references deaths; if

8
Non-cancer health effects are documented in classic works of John Gofman, for instance Radiation and Human Health (Random
House 1982) and digital documents available: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/overviews.html#CNR and Dr. Rosalie Bertells
classic work No Immediate Danger Summer Town Books, 1986.
9
See the Expanded Policy Statement on Below Regulatory Concern of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the
Federal Register in 1990.
111
14/ 01/ 2012
4

non-fatal cancers were included by NRC, the comparison would be even worse. We are less
protected by NRC radiation standards than the regulation of other toxic hazards by EPA.

The NRC limit of 100 millirems a year is comparable to the NAS 100 millirad study level.
NRCs risk assessment of 1 fatal cancer in every 286 exposed does not reflect the NAS findings
that radiation at this level to women results in 1 fatal cancer in every 201 women. The NRC
equation underestimates the risk to women by nearly 40%. Since NRC does not differentiate
between men and women in its regulations, it does not regulate to specifically protect women.
Thus women are not equally protected where such standards are in place.

Since 1992 there has been further relaxation of regulations: the amount of radioactivity legally
released to the environment under NRC regulations has gone up, however the stated dose of
radiation from those revised levels remains unchanged. This paradox is contrary to NRC's own
principle that there is no safe level of radiation, which should dictate tightening, not the reverse.

Following is a more detailed presentation and deconstruction of the NAS report, additional
commentary and a brief history of the regulation of radiation.

An Explanation of NAS BEIR VII TABLE 12D-3:

The balance of this paper will unfold the analysis of radiations impact on women found in the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII, Phase
2 report, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, published by the
National Academy Press in 2006.

Following is selected information from: Table 12D-3 on page 312 of the BEIR VII report called
Lifetime Attributable Risk of Solid Cancer Incidence and Mortality.
10

Units: Rads are a statement of the amount of radiationand assumes, as NAS states, only
radiation from external sources (X-rays, gamma rays). A millirad (mrad) is 1/1000 of a rad.

The table reports the impacts of 100 mrad per year over a lifetime AND also 1 rad a year from
age 18 64 (these are doses in addition to natural background radiation exposures). The cancer
rates are per 100,000 people exposed.

The 100 mrad level corresponds to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions overall goal for
members of the public (100 millirem a year). The higher 1 rad a year is in the range of
occupational levels of radiation exposure (the US limit for workers is 5 times higher, 5 rems).

From BEIR VII, Table 12D-3 Lifetime exposure to 100 mrad:
MALES all cancers:
incidence = 621 in 100,000; this is the same as 1 in 161 (numbers simplified by this author)
and deaths = 332 in 100,000; this is the same as 1 in 302

10
The original is available on-line from the National Academy press at:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=312

112
14/ 01/ 2012
5

FEMALESall cancers:
incidence = 1019 in 100,000; this is the same as 1 in 98
This cancer rate in females is 60% higher compared to the rate in males reported above
This cancer death rate in females is 50% higher than the cancer death rate in males reported
above.

From U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
11
:
No differentiation for males v females, 70 year (lifetime) at 100 mrems/year (comparable to
mrads if only consider external radiation) NRC states:

3.5 fatal cancers in every 1000 exposed; this is the same as 350 fatal cancers per 100,000 (to
compare to the BEIR VII) and also the same as 1 fatal cancer in 286 people so exposed.
(incidence is not reported)

The NRC generic assignment of risk of fatal cancer to both genders is a 42% under-report for
women compared to the cancer death rate for females in the NAS findings above.

BEIR VII -- Annual exposure to 1 rad, for ages 18 64
[note: this radiation exposure is 10 times higher per year than the group above, but still
only 1/5 of what nuclear workers can legally be exposed to per year]

MALES all cancers:

FEMALES all cancers:
This cancer rate is 40% higher than the cancer rate in males reported above
This cancer death rate is 40% higher than the cancer death rate in males reported above

Commentary:

Adding in Background Radiation
Federal agencies have repeatedly altered their assessments of how much background radiation
people in the U.S. get on an annual basis.
12
Natural background radiation refers to that
received from terrestrial sources (primarily uranium and its decay progeny in rocks and earth)
and non-terrestrial sources. The reported levels have stayed relatively constant at 80-100

11
In 1990 the NRC published the Expanded Below Regulatory Concern policy, in which its assessment of risk from radiation
was published. The NRC reports that in its view, 100 millirems a year for a lifetime results in 3.5 fatal cancers per 1000 people
exposed--or 1 in 286 (with no designation of gender/age).
12
In 1990, the NRC stated that the average annual dose of radiation to a member of the public is in the range of 100 millirems a
year. Before 2000 this number was reassessed to 360 millirems year to reflect exposure to radon in indoor air and some manmade
sources. It has never been clear whether either of these estimates reflected radiation from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, or
Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents. Dr Bertell reports that manmade radiation becomes part of background after it has been
in the environment for a year. In an eerie coincidence, in January 2011, US NRC upgraded annual radiation, including medical
doses and more of other sources and places background at 620 millirems a year, just as another catastrophic release of
radioactivity is occurring.
113
14/ 01/ 2012
6

millirems a year on average depending on elevation.
13
For purposes of this discussion, where
only low-LET radiation from external sources is considered, a millirem and a millirad are
effectively interchangeable. "natural radiation" results in "natural cancer."

Everything on Earth gets exposed to radiation; this "background" exposure is not uniform--so
averages are used, but are not necessarily accurate. When radiation hits living tissue there is
always the potential for damage that may lead to disease. This natural ionizing radiation is
from cosmic rays from deep space, from the sun, from meteors, from elements that are part of
Earths crust and core that are taken up in the food chain, dissolved by water or spewed by
volcanoes and spread by dust storms. At 100 millirems a year over a lifetime, this natural
background radiation exposure is comparable to the 100 mrads that the NAS looked at.
Background radiation is however, an additional dose. When doing research, it is assumed that
the "control group" and the "study group" both get the same background radiation dose; therefore
the "study group" who got the 100 mRad a year were in actuality receiving, on average, 200
mRad a year total radiation dose.

All radiation exposures from radioactivity that is released into our air and water from industrial
energy production, military activities and all the accident sources are over and above the
naturally occurring background radiation that comes with living on this planet. Thus, the
NRCs legal dose of 100 mr/yr is on top of background, and constitutes a doubling (on average)
of both the dose of radiation and risk of health consequences from radiation to the public.

Adding to the background dose does not change the rate of risk but as dose goes up, so does
harm. The dose/response (harm) relationship assumed by NAS (and NRC) is linear. When the
dose doubles, so does the harm. Interpretation of the NAS data which reports both cancer
incidence and cancer fatalities at two dose levels again opens the doors to many "apples vs
oranges" vs "peaches and grapes" since it is not possible to completely factor the issues between
a cancer which results in death and one which is survived. In addition, the linear model has been
challenged by later, independent researchers who suggest, as the NAS data supports, a higher
level of harm at the lower levels of radiation exposure.
14

Assuming the additive nature of exposure and harm at low doses, adding the natural
radiation and natural cancer to the NAS "study group" results in one in 50 women getting
cancer from radiation exposure, and one in 100 dying as a result. This radiation dose (100
millirems/year "allowed" for industrial sources in addition to background) is precisely what the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets as its overall regulatory goal for nuclear operations of its
licensees.
15
While there is a cancer epidemic in the U.S., this level of harm
16
from legally
allowable levels of radiation is stunning and worthy of our attention and action.

13
NRC currently states that about 15% of the 620 millirems or 93 millirems come from naturally occurring minerals on earth
combined with cosmic rays. See: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html
14
See Gofman, John, 1990. Low-Dose Radiation, an Independent Analysis. CNR Books, Berkeley, CA
15
The NRC actually allows each license to expose the public (an adult male is assumed) up to 100 millirems a year in air, another
100 millirems/year in water, up to 500/year in sewage. Many nuclear power plants have two or three licenses per site.
16
Ionizing radiation regulation is demonstrably far less protective than the regulation of toxic chemicals where the allowable
level of risk of fatal cancer is 1 in 100,000 or in some challenging SuperFund clean-ups, as high as 1 in 10,000. We have seen
here that combined background, for which there is no option, plus only 100 mrads means that 1 in 50 women suffer cancer, and 1
in 100 die of it. That is a privilege by a factor of 1000.
114
14/ 01/ 2012
7

Internal Exposure
Radiation from radioactivity taken inside the body via inhalation, absorption and ingestion is
substantially different than external exposure. The NAS work explicitly does not consider any
internal dose. The survivors of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often cited
(incorrectly) as basis for 20th Century regulation of radioactivity, are also not representative of
the type of radiation most people today suffer. This group was primarily exposed to an intense
flash of external radiation. It is nuclear accidents like the meltdown of Three Mile Island,
17
the
explosion of Chernobyl
18
and now the explosions and meltdowns of Fukushima where food, air
and water have become substantially contaminated and internal exposures result.

Many radioactive elements emit particles (alpha, beta, neutrons) that are called high-LET
because they are traveling with a force which, combined with its greater mass may inflict greater
damage to living tissue than an X-ray. Lab studies show that an alpha particle may cause as
much as 1000 times greater damage to a cell than an X-ray
19
. Internalized radiation also results
in higher doses since every internal emission absorbed, at zero distance to the impacted tissues,
will cause radiation impact for as long as it is in the body, and may concentrate in the most
vulnerable areas, such as gonads or bone marrow.

The image (left) of tissue damaged by alpha particles originating
from a plutonium particle embedded in the lung of an ape is from
a photograph by Robert Del Tredici. (Photo used by permission)

When alpha and beta particle exposures from radioactive
substances that have found their way inside the body are included
the overall risk factors may or may not change,
20
but the
assessment of the radiation dose itself does change. The European Committee on Radiation Risk
report of 2003
21
discusses this in detail. This explication is based on the NAS which explicitly
does not include doses from internal sources.

History of Radiation Standard Setting
22

The first standards (in the 1920s) for exposure to ionizing radiation were developed to limit the
exposure of physicians. A committee of the International Association of Radiologists dedicated

17
Wing, Steven, et al 1997."A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near Three Mile Island: The Collision of Evidence
and Assumptions." Environmental Health Perspectives, page 52 - 57, Vol 105, No 1 January 1997. This study
showed that people were harmed by radiation released during the core melt at Three Mile Island and that previous
publications failed to have a strong scientific basis.
18
There is a large body of web-posted information about the Chernobyl accident, see for instance:
http://www.nirs.org/c20/c20us.htm. Maps of the deposition of contamination have been produced by several
sources. A recent animation of the cesium release is available (caution this is a LARGE file):
http://zerodegreeburn.com/chernobyl/film_nuage_web.swf
19
Many radiation research papers are cited in No Such Thing as a Safe Dose of Radiation posted:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nosafedose.pdf . See footnote 8 as well as additional reference section.
20
Dr John Gofman did a meticulous reanalysis of the data from the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks.
Gofman found that the assumption of a straight-line dose response may not be accurate at the low end of the graph--in other
words, low doses per unit of exposure are MORE harmful than higher ones. In fact the NAS findings do not dispute this insofar
as the higher dose group has a slightly lower risk of fatal cancer than the lower dose group. Gofmans work was published:
Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc.
1990:18-16, 18-18. Isbn 0-932682-89-8.
21
The Executive Summary of the ECRR report is posted: http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm
22
Much of this section is text provided by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who witnessed these events, It is effectively an oral history.
115
14/ 01/ 2012
8

itself to setting standards and developing units for measurement of radiation. The U.S., Canadian
and UK physicists of the Manhattan Project met, between 1945 and 1950, to set international
recommendations for Radiation Protection Standards, in light of atmospheric nuclear testing
which began in the Pacific by the U.S. in 1946, and the planned expansion of the nuclear
industrial base. During this time, the physicists decided only cancer deaths caused by radiation
were of concern. They also developed the Standard Man, 18-30 years old, Caucasian, healthy
(the soldier or atomic worker). This Standard Man is to this day the body mass used to calculate
a generic radiation dose when radiation measurements are taken. In 1950, the International
Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) was formed from the Radiologist Committee
and Manhattan Project physicists.

Membership in the ICRP is by recommendation of present members and approval of their
Executive Committee which has resulted in physicists constituting more than half the
membership of the Commission. This all took place, and the radiation exposure
recommendations were set, before any analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb
data, contrary to myths. Indeed, the survivors had not even been identified in 1950 when the
international standards, which stood unchallenged until 1990, were set. The ICRP as a self-
appointed entity has functioned to provide the appearance of a scientific basis for standards
designed to allow governments and private corporations to expose workers, and now by
extension, the general public to amounts of radiation over and above natural terrestrial levels. In
every case, these legal limits allow a doubling or more of the level of radiation that is natural
and with which life evolved.

Government agencies worldwide have based their standards on recommendations from the ICRP
and a corresponding National Committee for Radiological Protection (NCRP). These bodies
have not explicitly made standards to protect either women or children, originally due to the
historical focus on a relatively young male workforce. In the interim the public has become
subject to the ongoing contamination of air, water and soil by atmospheric nuclear weapons tests,
and from the growing number of catastrophic nuclear accidents including Windscale, Kyshtym,
Fermi 1, Santa Suzanna, Brookhaven, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission bases its levels of allowable radiation exposure to the
public and workers
23
on the NCRP and ICRP recommendations. The NRC regulates the largest
sources of radioactivity, the 104 operable nuclear reactors in the U.S. The radioactivity generated
by a single 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor unit per year is on the scale of 1000 detonations of an
atomic bomb like the one that destroyed Hiroshima. Reactors routinely release radioactivity to
air, water and as solid waste, with ongoing potential for radiation exposure even without an
accident.
24
The NRC does not regulate with respect to women or children, Using units that were
developed expressly with the assumption that the individual receiving the dose is an adult male.
Basing the national radiation limits on the standard or reference man is not protective of our
species. The standard reference man cannot, of course, reproduce by himself.

October 2011. Prepared by Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, maryo@nirs.org 828-252-8409 www.nirs.org CORRECTED 10/22/2011 page 5 (TYPO: 40% not 80%).

23
Chapter 10 Part 20 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
24
See Hidden Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Reactors in the United States posted at:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/drey_usa_pamphlet.pdf
116
14/ 01/ 2012
1/11/12 German to Stop Using Nuclear Energ - German Nuclear Energ
1/1 environment.about.com/od/nuclearenergwaste/a/German-To-Stop-Using-Nuclear-Energ.htm
Rela.ed Seache German Chancellor Angela Merkel Nuclear Power Plants Chancellor Angela Merkel Angela Merkel Nuclear Reactors
Efficiency Strategies
By Larry West, About.com Guide
German to Stop Using Nuclear Energ
German Government Abandons Nuclear Power in Favor of Renewable Energy
Published Ma. 30, 2011
The German government will stop using nuclear energy and shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022.
Minister of Ecology Norbert Roettgen made the announcement early Monday [May 30, 2011], and explained how Germany plans to phase out its 17
nuclear reactors over the next 11 years.
Voe in he Poll: Should We Eliminate or Expand Nuclear Power?
Geman o Phae O All Nclea Reaco
Roettgen said Germany's seven oldest reactors, which were taken offline for a safety review when the Japanese nuclear crisis began, will be shut
down and never used again. The Kruemmel nuclear reactor in northern Germany, which was already offline due to technical problems, will also be
permanently shut down. Six more reactors will be shut down no later than the end of 2021 and "the three most modern, newest nuclear plants will
go offline in 2022 at the latest," Roettgen said.
Mekel Change Poiion on Nclea Eneg
In 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed through a plan to extend operation of Germany's nuclear power plants, with the last reactor
scheduled to go offline in 2036. When a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems at nuclear reactors in Japan, sparking the
world's worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl, Merkel reversed her position and set up a special review board to consider energy options and make
recommendations.
"We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable," said Merkel, who has a Ph.D in physics. "We have to follow a
new path."
Geman o Sich fom Nclea o Reneable Eneg
With all 17 reactors online and operating, nuclear energy provided 23 percent of Germany's electricity. Renewable energyspecifically solar, wind
and hydroelectric powercurrently produces about 17 percent of the nation's electricity.
By increasing its investments in renewable energy, and employing energy-efficiency strategies that are expected to cut electricity demand by
around 10 percent, the German government plans to be meeting about half of its electricity needs with renewable energy by the time the last
nuclear reactor goes offline in 2022.
Geman' Nclea Shdon an Eample fo Ohe Naion
Germany is the largest economy in Europe and the fourth largest in the world. It is the only major industrialized nation to make the commitment to
become nuclear-free. Italy is the only other European nation that has abandoned nuclear power, a decision the Italians made following the
Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.
Businesses and utilities warned that abandoning nuclear energy and relying more heavily on renewable energy will lead to increased costs and
possible power shortages, but Merkel said that Germany could serve as a trailblazer for renewable energy and an example for other nations to
follow.
Enter email address
Fee Eni onmenal Ie Nel ee!
Di c in my forum
Sign Up
Enionmenal Ie
American Nuclear Society 2009 Wold Dieco of Nclea Uil. Managemen no aailable .an.og
Chemglass Reactor Systems Eclie diibo of Chemgla Reaco Sem and Lab Glaae .gpeci eni fi c.co.k
230 W Solar Panels 78/W Onl $179, Fom Top Majo PV Mf. 1000' In Sock, 38 Yea in Sola .nel ec.com
Nuclear Radiation Shielding Lage Manface in USA RadiaionSafe Solion Since1974 .LancIndi e.com
Share
117
14/ 01/ 2012
41

118
14/ 01/ 2012
42
119
14/ 01/ 2012
12/19/11 World and continents wind power capacit
1/4 www.thewindpower.net/statistics_world_en.php
Newsletter
Email address
Register
World and continents capacit.
Global capacit
Below . ou will find the development of global wind energ production capacit:
Year Capacit (MW) Growth (MW) Growth (%)
1995 4,800 - -
1996 6,100 1,300 27.1
1997 7,480 1,380 22.7
1998 9,667 2,187 29.3
1999 13,701 4,034 64.4
2000 18,040 4,339 31.7
2001 24,319 6,279 34.9
2002 31,181 6,862 28.3
2003 41,343 10,163 32.6
2004 49,463 8,121 19.7
2005 59,137 9,674 19.6
2006 74,178 15,042 25.5
2007 93,953 19,775 26.7
2008 121,328 27,376 29.2
2009 158,004 36,676 30.3
2010 194,154 36,151 22.9
Africa capacit
Countries : Algeria Cape Verde Egpt Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Kena Liba Mauritius Morocco Moambique Namibia Nigeria
SEARCH PRICES/SER. ICES CONTACT
Wind Po. er
Generation
Search
Thousands of
Catalogs for
Wind Power
Generation
www.gl obal spec.com
Home Countr. Wind farms Turbines Plaers Statistics Media
120
14/ 01/ 2012
InDuSTRy TRenDS
03
44
n hydropower Industry
The most mature of the renewables industries, the
hydropower industry in developed markets such as
the United States, the EU, Russia, Canada, and Japan is
characterized by a focus on repowering, relicensing, and
pumped storage development to complement increasing
shares of variable renewable electricity. Elsewhere, par-
ticularly in emerging markets, the focus is on construc-
tion of new hydropower capacity.
During 2010 in Brazil, developers like PCH Brasil put
projects on hold in response to rates of return below
1214%.
45
The small hydro industry suffered in the
EU, where conflicting national-level implementa-
tion demands associated with the Renewable Energy
Directive and Water Framework Directive resulted in
delays and permitting difficulties.
46

The largest active hydropower industry is in China,
where there are hundreds of small entrepreneurs and
municipal governments, as well as a number of large
players. India has a wide manufacturing base for small-
scale hydropower equipment, with 20 active domestic
manufacturers with equipment manufacturing total
capacity of 300 MW per year. In addition, there are about
five manufacturers producing equipment for micro-
hydro and watermills.
47

Alstom, Andritz, IMPSA, and Voith lead in the manufac-
ture of hydropower equipment, accounting for approxi-
mately 4050% of the global market. The remaining
5060% market share is controlled by regional players,
including American Hydro (North America), Bharat
Heavy Electrical (India), CKD Blansko Holding (former
Eastern Bloc), Energomashexport (Russian Federation
and former Eastern bloc), and Hitachi and Toshiba (Japan
and North America). Chinese equipment manufacturers
Harbin Electric Machinery and Zhejiang Machinery &
Equipment are also emerging as global players.
48

n Ocean energy Industry
Wave and tidal technologies saw significant progress
toward commercial generation in 2010, benefiting from
a mix of government policies and financial grants and
new entrants. Industry development in the U.K. led this
nascent industry, with development also occurring in the
United States and Canada. The focus continues to be on
the design and evaluation of demonstration prototypes.
Manufacturers of wave energy devices include Pelamis
Wave Power, Wave Dragon, Voith Hydro Wavegen,
Ocean Energy Ltd., AWS II BV, Fred Olsen, Ocean Power
Technologies, Aquamarine, and Wello Oy. Manufacturers
of tidal current energy technologies include Hammerfest
Strom, Verdant Power, Voith Hydro Ocean Current
Technologies, Marine Current Turbines, Clean Current
Power Systems, Ponte di Archimede, Open Hydro,
Atlantis Resources, Minesto, Pulse Tidal, Tidal Energy,
Tidal Generation, TidalStream, and VerdErg Renewable
Energy.
49
At least 32 companies are active in the develop-
ment and evaluation of prototype wave projects funded
by the U.K. government, with the industrys long-term
outlook growing following the auctioning of leases by the
Crown Estate. The U.S. industry currently has more than
50 active companies.
50

In 2010, a number of traditional hydropower firms
joined the industry, including Andritz Hydro, Alstom
Hydro, and Voith Hydro in 2010. Utilities that joined
include Iberdrola-ScottishPower, Vattenfall, RWE, E.ON,
Scottish & Southern Energy Renewables, and Scottish
Power Renewables.
51
121
14/ 01/ 2012
03
43
development, a trend first noted in 2008. In Japan, manu-
facturers have become involved in direct retailing, instal-
lation, and after-sale service. Some traditional energy
companies have diversified by expanding their opera-
tions into renewable energy: Saudi Arabian energy firm
KA-CARE announced a 10 MW PV plant for desalination
in 2010, and oil company Saudi Aramco is co-developing
a 12 MW power plant with Solar Frontier.
35

In response to Indias National Solar Mission, with its
ambitious target of 20 GW of solar power installed
nationwide by 2022, Indias domestic solar manu-
facturing industry saw new growth in 2010. Indian
firms include Bharat Heavy Industries, Central
Electronics, HHV Solar Technologies, Indosolar, KSK
Surya Photovoltaic, Moser Baer, Tata BP, Websol Energy
Systems, XL Telecom & Energy, Jupiter Solar Power, and
Bhaskar Silicon. Moser Baer India led in new project
installations during 2010, including the commissioning
of a 1 MW thin-film power plant in Maharashtra.
36

n Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CSP)
Industry
The year 2010 saw some notable trends in the CSP
industry. Although industry activity continued to focus in
the two leading markets of Spain and the United States,
the industry expanded its attention to other markets in
Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Morocco, and even China. Still,
most industry expansion took place in Europe and the
United States. For example, Schott of Germany doubled
its production of receiver tubes in its facility in Seville,
Spain. Rio Glass of Spain, a relatively new company that
has become a major producer in recent years, was build-
ing a manufacturing plant in the United States and also
planning for plants in India and China.
38
The industry also saw several acquisitions by major
energy players seeking to enter the CSP market. Siemens
bought Solel (Israel), ABB bought Novatech, GE bought
E-Solar, and Ariva bought Ausra. Alstrom also entered
into a joint venture with Bright Source. The industry
remained vertically integrated, with individual compa-
nies involved in many parts of the value chain, but this
was expected to change as markets expand and as com-
panies specialize in specific parts of the value chain.
39

Firms also began to expand their technology develop-
ment efforts to include molten salt technology. Examples
are Bass and Yara of Spain. Development of new designs
for molten salt towers and even trough systems was
continuing in expectation of new Spanish policy for CSP
beyond 2012. Such new policy would allow for new
designs and technologies, in contrast to the existing
but limited feed-in tariff, which applies only to already-
planned and designed projects.
40

The Spanish industry leads the world in CSP plant design
and operation with over 80 active firms.
41
Leading
project development firms worldwide include Abengoa
(Spain), Acciona (Spain), BrightSource (United States),
Schott (Germany), and Siemens (Germany).
42
Leading
mirror manufacturers include Saint-Gobain (France),
Flabeg (Germany), and Rio Glass (Spain). Other notable
CSP firms include Areva (Spain), eSolar (USA), Solar
Millennium (Germany), and Solar Reserve (USA).
43

nGeothermal heat and Power Industry
Geothermal power technologies include conventional
hydrothermal, enhanced geothermal systems (hot
rocks, EGS), and co-production or geopressure systems.
Plants are typically 50200 MW and take 57 years to
develop from discovery to commercial development.
The risk to developers is similar to oil or mining projects
where the size of the resource is unconfirmed until
drilling takes place.
The U.S. industry is the global leader, developing
approximately one-third of the worlds new projects,
all in its domestic market. Japanese firms Mitsubishi,
Toshiba, and Fuji Electric supply 70% of the steam
turbines at geothermal plants worldwide. Leading firms
in conventional geothermal include Borealis Geopower,
Calpine, CalEnergy, Chevron, Enel SpA, GeoGlobal,
Gradient Resources, Magma Energy Corp., Mighty River
Power, Nevada Geothermal Power, Ormat Technologies,
Oski Energy, POWER Engineers, Ram Power, Terra-Gen
Power, ThermaSource, and U.S. Geothermal. Leaders in
EGS Geothermal include AltaRock Energy, EGS Energy,
Geox, Geodynamics, and Potter Drilling.
44

R
E
N
E
W
A
B
L
E
S

2
0
1
1

G
l
O
b
a
l

S
T
a
T
u
S

R
e
P
O
R
T
122
14/ 01/ 2012
12/30/11 Precious Lithium Squeezed Out of Geothermal Waste Water | Inhabitat - Gr
2/10 inhabitat.com/precious-lithium-squeezed-out-of-geothermal-waste-water/
Li. e
Pr ecious Lithium Squeezed Out
of Geother mal Waste Water
by Ariel Schwartz, 12/11/09
filed under: Renewable Energy
We need electric vehicles to curb our thirst for oil, but there.s a problem: EV.s generally use lots of lithium in their batteries, and that.s another
limited resource. Now Simbol Mining thinks it has a partial solution in a new technique that extracts battery lithium from the wastewater of
geothermal plants.
Microsoft. Private Cloud
Microsoft Private Cloud Solutions Built For The
Future & Explore Now.
www.microsoft.com/Private_Cloud
123
14/ 01/ 2012
12/30/11 Precious Lithium Squeezed Out of Geothermal Waste Water | Inhabitat - Gr
3/10 inhabitat.com/precious-lithium-squeezed-out-of-geothermal-waste-water/
Currently, most lithium is sourced from soil or dried brine in a water-intensive process. But Simbol.s technique uses water that is already being
extracted for geothermal energy. The technique, which Simbol hopes to use in the geothermal and lithium-rich waters in California.s underground
Salton Sea, pulls lithium ions out of the water and into a lithium chloride compound that can be mixed with sodium carbonate for shipping. Heat
from the water helps power the process.
Simbol is in the midst of building a pilot plant that can produce a ton of lithium metal each month. If all goes well, the company will scale up. And
within ten years, Simbol hopes that it will produce a quarter of the world.s demand for lithium-carbonate not bad for some dirty geothermal
waste water.
+ Simbol Mining
Via New Scientist
3
0 t. eet
print email thisemail
Rela. ed Po. ..
UK Engineers Search for Geothermal Reservoirs Under Newcastle
The U.S. is not the only country heavily investing in geothermal energy the United Kingdom is also looking for alternative methods to
generate electricity
Google-Funded Study Finds US Geothermal Power Capacity is Ten Times the Current Coal Power Supply
A new study shows that the United States has a geothermal power capacity that is ten times greater than the amount of energy produced
by
ICELAND.S GEOTHERMAL POWER
Iceland is hot both as a tourist destination, and underground, where all the geothermal action is. Iceland sits on the geologically active
Mid-Atlantic Ridge
124
14/ 01/ 2012
48

ek; ,
G+Tyfpy
22-
Dege
rpjpy
Ug;Gf;fh
y; ez;gu;
-12-2011
eneration
ykuGfs
hf.
ufs;
n
s;
125
14/ 01/ 2012

Future of Nuclear Powers (Tamil)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Future of Nuclear Powers (Tamil)

Caricato da

Copyright:

1

#upad; cjakhdNghJ fu;j;ju; Nyhj;J FLk;gj;ij Nrhthu; kiyapy; milf;fyk;

,e;jpahtpy; kpd; cw;gj;jp :

,Jtiu ele; j mZciy tpgj; Jf; fs; :

Qhdk; gaj;jpd; ntspg;ghL> mr;rj;jpd; njspTepiy.

Potrebbero piacerti anche