WNA is pleased to present the following documents sharing the perspectives of some of the leading experts on nuclear energy. Public Trust in Nuclear Energy (pdf) Wade Allison A list of the pros and cons of nuclear energy is straightforward; we need it, it is safe, but people are frightened of it. The need to replace fossil fuels with another large base-load source is widely understood and the safety of the nuclear solution has been demonstrated many times; even in accidents in which reactors suffer irreparable damage, the impact on human health has been minimal. For example, at Fukushima there has been no death, or even extended hospitalisation, due to radiation, nor is this likely to be responsible for any cancer deaths in 50 years. The reasons for the fear of radiation are instinctive and historical. It is natural to shun what is powerful and unseen, and the legacy of the Cold War with its weapon of nuclear fear has added to that. Although the public accepts moderate to high doses of radiation when used benignly for their own health, non-medical international safety standards are set extremely low to appease popular concerns - these specify levels found in nature or as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Yet modern biology and medicine confirm that no harm comes from radiation levels up to 1000 times higher and realistic safety levels could be set as high as relatively safe (AHARS). Indeed the local damage to public health and the social economy caused by ALARA regulations imposed at Chernobyl and Fukushima has been extremely serious and without benefit. Global damage to future prospects for nuclear power is avoidable. Public trust in nuclear energy should be rebuilt on the existing acceptance of beneficial clinical radiation dose levels through a programme of open and explanatory public education at all levels. Science, not the result of litigation or a popular political vote, is the only firm basis for radiological safety and genuine reassurance. The international authorities (ICRP, UNSCEAR and IAEA) should change the philosophy of their recommendations in order to relate to real dangers (ALARA to AHARS), which would ensure that the world does not continue to be “spooked” by the one major energy source that could support future economic stability without damage to the environment. Reflections on US Nuclear History (pdf)
Wade Allison
A list of the pros and cons of nuclear energy is straightforward; we need it, it is safe, but people are frightened of it. The need to replace fossil fuels with another large base-load source is widely understood and the safety of the nuclear solution has been demonstrated many times; even in accidents in which reactors suffer irreparable damage, the impact on human health has been minimal. For example, at Fukushima there has been no death, or even extended hospitalisation, due to radiation, nor is this likely to be responsible for any cancer deaths in 50 years.
The reasons for the fear of radiation are instinctive and historical. It is natural to shun what is powerful and unseen, and the legacy of the Cold War with its weapon of nuclear fear has added to that. Although the public accepts moderate to high doses of radiation when used benignly for their own health, non-medical international safety standards are set extremely low to appease popular concerns - these specify levels found in nature or as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Yet modern biology and medicine confirm that no harm comes from radiation levels up to 1000 times higher and realistic safety levels could be set as high as relatively safe (AHARS). Indeed the local damage to public health and the social economy caused by ALARA regulations imposed at Chernobyl and Fukushima has been extremely serious and without benefit.
Global damage to future prospects for nuclear power is avoidable. Public trust in nuclear energy should be rebuilt on the existing acceptance of beneficial clinical radiation dose levels through a programme of open and explanatory public education at all levels. Science, not the result of litigation or a popular political vote, is the only firm basis for radiological safety and genuine reassurance. The international authorities (ICRP, UNSCEAR and IAEA) should change the philosophy of their recommendations in order to relate to real dangers (ALARA to AHARS), which would ensure that the world does not continue to be “spooked” by the one major energy source that could support future economic stability without damage to the environment.
Ted Rockwell
Dr. Theodore (Ted) Rockwell has more than 60 years experience in the US nuclear industry. He was the first recipient of the American Nuclear Society Lifetime Contribution Award, now known as the Rockwell Award. He has two Distinguished Service Medals, and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He was Technical Director of Admiral Rickover’s program tobuild the US nuclear Navy and the world’s first commercial atomic power station.
In this report Dr. Rockewell takes a personal view of some events and decisions taken in relation to the use of nuclear energy in the US, many of which antedate the memories of most people in the nuclear enterprise today. Up-close history often looks very different from the stories in typical history books. Dr Rockwell wonders what would have happened, if the rest of the world had followed France’s lead into the nuclear age, starting in 1973 and asks whether we understand the full cost of restraints and penalties still being selectively imposed on nuclear today.
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, who sadly died in November 2011, was a retired chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
The Chernobyl accident was probably the worst possible catastrophe of a nuclear power station. It resulted in a total meltdown of the reactor core, a vast emission of radionuclides, and early deaths of 31 persons. In this report Prof. Jaworoski argued the enormous political, economic, social and psychological impact of Chernboly was mainly due to deeply rooted radiophobia induced by the linear non-threshold (LNT) assumption on radiation health effects and suggests that the accident demonstrated that using the LNT assumption as a basis for protection measures and radiation dose limitations was counterproductive, and led to sufferings and pauperization of millions of inhabitants of contaminated areas.
Zack Pate and Jim Ellis
INPO is a nongovernmental corporation that operates on a not-for-profit basis. The role of INPO is to help the nuclear power industry set and achieve the highest standards of safety and excellence in operational performance. Since the inception of INPO, all organizations that have direct responsibility to operate or construct commercial nuclear power plants in the United States have maintained continuous membership in INPO. Currently, INPO has 26 members that operate 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states. In addition, many international groups and supplier organizations are voluntary participants in INPO. In this WNA Personal Perspective Zack Pate and Jim Ellis describe the origins and activities of INPO.