Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In the case of very low-probability events, such as major nuclear plant
accidents, actuarial data are either too limited to be meaningful or are
nonexistent. Statistical models must be established, and their quality and
reliability depend on the assumptions that go into them. The modeling
permits a quantitative assessment of what can go wrong, the likelihood
that it can go wrong, and the consequences if it does go wrong.
The scenarios are arguably uncertain due to the diffi culty of quantify-
ing human responses, and model quality varies from one reactor to the
next. Many experts believe that quantitative risk calculations cannot
reliably measure the absolute risk of low-probability catastrophic events
but can be reliably used to compare relative safety. That is, the models
can be used to say that one reactor or facility is safer than another, but
we cannot know how safe either one is. This is not very reassuring.
Moreover, there are no assessments for the multitude of reactors outside
the United States, which is three-quarters of the world's operating
reactors.
Irradiating Employees and Their Neighbors
Assume you are working in a nuclear power plant and live nearby. You
have read what the experts say and are satisfi ed that the risk of a cata-
strophic equipment failure that would irradiate you is small enough that
you have no hesitation about going to work. Furthermore, you feel that
there are enough fail-safe procedures in place that human error is unlikely
to be able to cause a massive failure in the functioning of the plant.
Should you be concerned about leakage of radiation in and around the
plant site?
The answer is yes. Nuclear facilities emit low-level radiation during
normal operations, and many studies have documented adverse effects
on animals and people living around the plant.
20
Radioactive ants,
roaches, rats, gnats, fl ies, worms, and pigeons have been found near
nuclear plants. A study in 2003 determined that cancer rates for children
living within thirty miles of each of fourteen nuclear plants exceeded the
national average. One in nine of these cancers was linked to radioactive
emissions. A 2004 study reported a 40 percent increase in childhood
cancers in two counties closest to reactors in St. Lucie, Florida. A study
in the United Kingdom in 2006 found cancer rates among young women
living near a closed nuclear power station to be fi fteen times higher than
the average in the United Kingdom. Another study the same year found
the death rate from cancer in neighborhoods close to a U.K. nuclear plant
