This podcast seems to worry that we as a society are not safety conscious enough and yet we have zero tolerance for even a small release. This is contradictory.
Our society has not yet recognized that more harm is done by fear of radiation than by radiation. Climate scientists Kharecha and Hansen estimated that reactors have saved 1.8 million lives and prevented 64 gigatonnes of CO2 to be released - CH4 was not estimated. Look at my comment in the Chris's Wright's Law podcast. The nuclear industry had early years of rapid progress making cost effective reactors. If this could have continued then we would be talking about much higher lives saved and GHG prevented.
Two great books by James Mahaffey are excellent reading for reactor developers to develop sensitivity to possible accident effects. I read and absorbed Atomic Accidents and Atomic Adventures.
However, fear-status-quo is not a foundation for successful deployment of nuclear power. "As Touran noted during a recent panel discussion with investors, their tolerance for even small radiation releases is “basically zero.” While this may seem unfair compared to other energy sources, it reflects reality. A nuclear accident that releases radiation, even without causing immediate harm, can destroy public confidence, investor support, and industry momentum. This asymmetrical standard means that maintaining high safety margins and a strong safety culture isn't just good practice—it's essential for nuclear power's continued existence."
There WILL BE future accidents. We need to change regulatory mythology that any radiation is potentially fatal. NRC refused to adopt the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information 2015 petition to dismiss ALARA and change allowable exposure levels.
Please read Nuclear Power's Next Big Event at https://hargraves.substack.com/p/nuclear-powers-next-big-event-42a . Without scientific regulations and NRC/EPA reforms, the next accident will choke off nuclear power for decades, again, as did Fukushima, where no members of the public were harmed by radiation.
Thanks Robert. i would like to add a couple of points.
Lets remember that even minor releases, like TMI, are accompanied by catastrophic damage to the plant. TMI turned a multi-billion dollar asset, in todays dollars, into an almost equal costly cleanup. Fukushima is similar, but much worse. Reactor owners will always prioritize safety since they cannot afford (in dollars) not to.
The second point is virtually all accidents were easy to prevent (I too read Mahaffey). TMI would have been prevented by passing on Lessons Learned between units, since one of the key issues at TMI occurred earlier at a different unit. Fukushima could have been prevented by an appropriate sea wall. In summary, reactor owners will prioritize safety since they can't afford to lose their investment and they have been warned many times about how to maintain safety.
This podcast seems to worry that we as a society are not safety conscious enough and yet we have zero tolerance for even a small release. This is contradictory.
Our society has not yet recognized that more harm is done by fear of radiation than by radiation. Climate scientists Kharecha and Hansen estimated that reactors have saved 1.8 million lives and prevented 64 gigatonnes of CO2 to be released - CH4 was not estimated. Look at my comment in the Chris's Wright's Law podcast. The nuclear industry had early years of rapid progress making cost effective reactors. If this could have continued then we would be talking about much higher lives saved and GHG prevented.
Two great books by James Mahaffey are excellent reading for reactor developers to develop sensitivity to possible accident effects. I read and absorbed Atomic Accidents and Atomic Adventures.
However, fear-status-quo is not a foundation for successful deployment of nuclear power. "As Touran noted during a recent panel discussion with investors, their tolerance for even small radiation releases is “basically zero.” While this may seem unfair compared to other energy sources, it reflects reality. A nuclear accident that releases radiation, even without causing immediate harm, can destroy public confidence, investor support, and industry momentum. This asymmetrical standard means that maintaining high safety margins and a strong safety culture isn't just good practice—it's essential for nuclear power's continued existence."
There WILL BE future accidents. We need to change regulatory mythology that any radiation is potentially fatal. NRC refused to adopt the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information 2015 petition to dismiss ALARA and change allowable exposure levels.
Please read Nuclear Power's Next Big Event at https://hargraves.substack.com/p/nuclear-powers-next-big-event-42a . Without scientific regulations and NRC/EPA reforms, the next accident will choke off nuclear power for decades, again, as did Fukushima, where no members of the public were harmed by radiation.
Thanks Robert. i would like to add a couple of points.
Lets remember that even minor releases, like TMI, are accompanied by catastrophic damage to the plant. TMI turned a multi-billion dollar asset, in todays dollars, into an almost equal costly cleanup. Fukushima is similar, but much worse. Reactor owners will always prioritize safety since they cannot afford (in dollars) not to.
The second point is virtually all accidents were easy to prevent (I too read Mahaffey). TMI would have been prevented by passing on Lessons Learned between units, since one of the key issues at TMI occurred earlier at a different unit. Fukushima could have been prevented by an appropriate sea wall. In summary, reactor owners will prioritize safety since they can't afford to lose their investment and they have been warned many times about how to maintain safety.
Thank you Robert for highlighting key points from Chris's post.