Fukushima and the Future of Safe Energy in the United States
David Richardson, PhDAndrew S. Kanter, MD MPH
Occupational risks
Photo: REUTERS Medical staff arrive at Fukushima Medical University Hospital to treat radiation exposed workers from Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Fukushima City, Japan, March 24, 2011.
Photograph: Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency/APPlant workers collect data in the control room for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Environmental releases
Photograph: Reuters. Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are continuing the efforts to make the stricken No 3 reactor safe.
Environmental releases
Photograph: EPA. Wednesday 23 March: A farmer looks on as radioactive milk is poured into the soil at a dairy farm in Mito town, Ibaraki prefecture
Maternal Irradiation During Pregnancy
Leukemia Other Malignant Disease
Case/Control
RR (95%CI) Case/Control
RR (95%CI)
None 202/222 referent 202/225 referent
Other 25/23 1.19 (0.65, 2.16)
33/32 1.15 (0.68,1.94)
Abdomen 42/24 1.92 (1.12, 3.28)
43/21 2.28 (1.31, 3.97)
Stewart, 1956
Ionizing Radiation and Chilldhood
Cancer: Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer
Ratio of Observed to Expected DeathsLifetime Cumulative Dose
Ratio of Observed to Expected Deaths Cumulative Dose >=45 yrs Adjusted for Dose < 45 yrs
Alternative Descriptions of Age-at-Exposure Effects on Solid Cancer Incidence, Life Span Study, 1958-1998
Preston et al., Radiation Research, 168:1-64, 2007
Nuclear Power Plants in the US
104 operating nuclear power plants and 36 non-power reactors in the US
11 operating plants in Northern Illinois
Produce 19% of the nation’s energy
Nuclear plant safety-Could it happen here?Core protected by containment domeCoolant supply critical and must be maintained after chain reaction shutdown (20,000-500,000 g/m)Spent fuel pools vulnerable
Spent Fuel StorageAfter 12-24 months in the reactor, fuel is offloaded into cooling ponds
Must remain until cool
More than 10x the radioactive material than the core (20-50 million curies Cs-137)
-Chernobyl released 2 million curies
Accident/Attack at Braidwood
PWR producing 2500 MW at full power
50+ mi SW of Chicago
Two scenarios:Reactor vessel breach
Spent fuel pond fire
Analysis Tools
HPAC- Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
CATS- Consequences Assessment Tool Set from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Braidwood Scenario 1
Catastrophic coolant failure
Core exposed causing fire and breach
4% of core/hr burned
Summer Day
Normal Temperatures
Broken Clouds
Medical ConsequencesThe number of acutely ill people would overwhelm all available care facilities Many facilities will not be available due to contamination:
113 hospitals would fall within the occupational exposure zone (including two VA hospitals) affecting more than 32,000 potential beds. Nearly 20,000 physicians in five counties would receive greater than occupational maximums for radiation exposure from the plume itself, let alone that from contaminated patients.
Medical ConsequencesFirst responders, like firefighters would also be badly affected. The 25 firefighters of Essex Fire Department would possibly receive lethal doses, and the 67 firefighters of Braidwood and Herscher departments would be suffering from radiation sickness. Another 10,500 firefighters in 355 other departments would have exceeded occupational exposures from the plume itself and would be unavailable to respond within the highly contaminated area. Police departments would also be hard hit in Essex, Braidwood and Herscher with the 38 police officers receiving potentially lethal doses of radiation.
Indian Point Comparison
3,500-44,000 immediate deaths
100,000-500,000 long term deaths due to cancer
Economic damages within 100 mi range from $1.1-2.1 trillion
12 RecommendationsEnact a physical limit of CO2 emissions for large users of fossil fuels
Eliminate all subsidies / tax breaks for fossil fuels /nuclear power
Eliminate subsidies for biofuels from food crops
Build demo plants
Leverage federal, state and local purchasing power
Ban new coal-fired power plants w/o CCS
Enact at the federal level high efficiency standards
Enact stringent building efficiency standards
Enact stringent efficiency standards for vehicles
Reward early adopters of CO2 reductions
Adopt vigorous research, development, and pilot plant construction
Establish a standing comm. on Energy and Climate
For More InformationR. Alvarez et al., “Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States,” Science and Global Security 11 (2003): 1-51.
D. Hirsch, “The NRC: What, me worry?,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 58(1): 38-44.
E. Lyman, “Chernobyl on the Hudson?,” Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2004: 1-54.
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COmNdgHr628
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
Visit PSR’s website at:
http://www.psr.org
or contact PSR at:
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1012Washington, DC, 20009Telephone: (202) 667-4260Fax: (202) 667-4201