Feeds

Good news: A meltdown would kill fewer than we thought

So this is it, we’re all not all going to die

Intelligent flash storage arrays

Even if the worst happens, the death and destruction from a nuclear power station meltdown won’t be as bad as previously modeled, according to America’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

In a draft report given to the New York Times, the NRC has decided that a meltdown would release far less caesium 137 than previously thought. Most caesium would remain within a reactor’s containment, the report suggests, with only one to two percent escaping. Previously, the NRC had assumed that as much as 60 percent of the caesium in a reactor could escape in a meltdown.

In fact, if the report’s computer modeling and engineering analysis is correct, a meltdown might not even cause deaths in the immediate vicinity of a reactor. This conclusion is based on the belief that most people living within ten miles of a failing reactor would have time to evacuate. The most likely cause of a meltdown is a complete loss of power to a facility, resulting in a cooling failure (as famously happened in Fukushima) – but since this isn’t an instantaneous process, the NRC believes evacuation would be possible.

The New York Times also reports that with fewer people likely to be exposed to high levels of radiation in a meltdown, the likelihood of citizens developing cancers in the aftermath is also lower: from the previous estimate, that one person in every 167 living within ten miles would have sufficient exposure for a “latent cancer”, the NRC now believes the figure to be one person in every 4,348.

As with its previous estimates, the NRC’s work comes from modeling rather than observations: even with Fukushima as the headline for nuclear power disasters, there haven’t been enough accidents for any large-scale statistical studies of the likelihood of different failure scenarios. However, the NRC report has concluded that power loss, rather than the failure of pipes supplying cooling water, is the most likely cause of a meltdown.

The report was obtained under a freedom-of-information request by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which remains unconvinced by the draft report. The UCS believes tighter safeguards for America’s nuclear power plans is still required.

The final NRC report is due next April. ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
GRAV WAVE DRAMA: 'Big Bang echo' may have been grit on the scanner – boffins
Exit Planet Dust on faster-than-light expansion of universe
SpaceX Dragon cargo truck flies 3D printer to ISS: Clawdown in 3, 2...
Craft berths at space station with supplies, experiments, toys
That glass of water you just drank? It was OLDER than the SUN
One MEELLION years older. Some of it anyway
NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
Joins 'traffic light' and perfect stony sphere on the Red Planet
Big dinosaur wowed females with its ENORMOUS HOOTER
That's right, Doris, I've got biggest snout in the prehistoric world
Japanese volcano eruption reportedly leaves 31 people presumed dead
Hopes fade of finding survivors on Mount Ontake
Relive the death of Earth over and over again in Extinction Game
Apocalypse now, and tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that ...
prev story

Whitepapers

A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.