228
European countries where radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl fire, smoke, and
ash cloud descended.
The Three Mile Island accident officially resulted in zero deaths. The only actual
radionuclide release was a small amount of krypton gas that escaped into the air.
Some people claim the accident has resulted in above-average rates of cancer and
birth defects in the surrounding area, but this has not been proven.
The other two incidents did produce some fatalities. The Chernobyl accident was
the worst, with an official death toll of two people killed in the initial blast and an
additional 29 firemen killed by acute radiation exposure while attempting to put out
the reactor fire and contain the radioactivity release. Investigations by the World
Health Organization and other international agencies placed the immediate death
toll closer to 50, and concluded that a total of 4,000 to 9,000 people may eventually
die of cancers over the long term from chronic radiation exposure (Bennett et al.
2006). Other researchers disagree and place this total much higher, between 30,000
and 60,000 potential cancer deaths because of the widespread, low-level radioactive
fallout across Europe. Radiation exposures were greater than they should have been
due to the reluctance of the Soviet government to report the true severity of the
accident.
No immediate fatalities were reported as a result of radiation exposure in the
2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, although a 2018 lung cancer death was
linked to the accident (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575 accessed
2/20/20). The earthquake and subsequent tsunami that eventually led to the reactor
failure resulted in a far greater number of casualties, estimated at nearly 16,000. An
additional 573 deaths were attributed to stress and accidents from the evacuation of
the area around the nuclear power plant (WHO (World Health Organization) 2013).
Each of these three incidents resulted in the recognition of previously unknown
problems, and led to major safety improvements in nuclear facilities world-wide.
Overheating of the reactor cores was the ultimate cause of the disasters at all three
plants. At Three Mile Island it resulted in better control systems, more redundancy,
and additional monitoring sensors in the reactor and surrounding cooling system.
Chernobyl led to the abandonment of old-style, graphite-moderated reactors that
date back to the Manhattan Project and burn like charcoal if they get hot enough.
Fukushima showed that accounting for the natural disasters that might affect a reactor requires planning for all natural disasters, even low probability events like a
tsunami. As a result of these lessons learned, nuclear power is considerably safer
today than electricity generated from the early reactors of the 1950s and 1960s.
Compared to the number of kilowatt-hours of power generated, nuclear electricity is far safer than any fossil-fuel based energy (Markandya and Wilkinson 2007).
Premature deaths from air pollution caused by electrical generation using coal combustion, especially lower Btu brown coal greatly exceed any fatalities from nuclear
accidents, even Chernobyl (Fig. 12.1).
Developing new nuclear technology for the future will provide a significant technological solution for climate change. Many people fear nuclear energy because
power plants are complex structures where a delicate balance must be maintained
between the reactor temperature, cooling system, heat exchangers and power
12 Moving into the Energy Future
European countries where radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl fire, smoke, and
ash cloud descended.
The Three Mile Island accident officially resulted in zero deaths. The only actual
radionuclide release was a small amount of krypton gas that escaped into the air.
Some people claim the accident has resulted in above-average rates of cancer and
birth defects in the surrounding area, but this has not been proven.
The other two incidents did produce some fatalities. The Chernobyl accident was
the worst, with an official death toll of two people killed in the initial blast and an
additional 29 firemen killed by acute radiation exposure while attempting to put out
the reactor fire and contain the radioactivity release. Investigations by the World
Health Organization and other international agencies placed the immediate death
toll closer to 50, and concluded that a total of 4,000 to 9,000 people may eventually
die of cancers over the long term from chronic radiation exposure (Bennett et al.
2006). Other researchers disagree and place this total much higher, between 30,000
and 60,000 potential cancer deaths because of the widespread, low-level radioactive
fallout across Europe. Radiation exposures were greater than they should have been
due to the reluctance of the Soviet government to report the true severity of the
accident.
No immediate fatalities were reported as a result of radiation exposure in the
2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, although a 2018 lung cancer death was
linked to the accident (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575 accessed
2/20/20). The earthquake and subsequent tsunami that eventually led to the reactor
failure resulted in a far greater number of casualties, estimated at nearly 16,000. An
additional 573 deaths were attributed to stress and accidents from the evacuation of
the area around the nuclear power plant (WHO (World Health Organization) 2013).
Each of these three incidents resulted in the recognition of previously unknown
problems, and led to major safety improvements in nuclear facilities world-wide.
Overheating of the reactor cores was the ultimate cause of the disasters at all three
plants. At Three Mile Island it resulted in better control systems, more redundancy,
and additional monitoring sensors in the reactor and surrounding cooling system.
Chernobyl led to the abandonment of old-style, graphite-moderated reactors that
date back to the Manhattan Project and burn like charcoal if they get hot enough.
Fukushima showed that accounting for the natural disasters that might affect a reactor requires planning for all natural disasters, even low probability events like a
tsunami. As a result of these lessons learned, nuclear power is considerably safer
today than electricity generated from the early reactors of the 1950s and 1960s.
Compared to the number of kilowatt-hours of power generated, nuclear electricity is far safer than any fossil-fuel based energy (Markandya and Wilkinson 2007).
Premature deaths from air pollution caused by electrical generation using coal combustion, especially lower Btu brown coal greatly exceed any fatalities from nuclear
accidents, even Chernobyl (Fig. 12.1).
Developing new nuclear technology for the future will provide a significant technological solution for climate change. Many people fear nuclear energy because
power plants are complex structures where a delicate balance must be maintained
between the reactor temperature, cooling system, heat exchangers and power
12 Moving into the Energy Future