nuclear-news

Increasing risk, imperfectly assessed

The first is that the calculations used to assess risks posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear power are “fallible.” There is no implicit criticism of the analysis methods used; rather, the article warns against over-confidence in what are inevitably imprecise methods, and urges governments, nuclear industries, and concerned citizens to “reexamine the assumptions” upon which nuclear energy production, safety, security, and emergency procedures are founded.

Secondly, the article warns that the risks posed by nuclear accidents, regional war, and nuclear terrorism are increasing. The article attributes this increasing risk, at least in part, to emerging nuclear powers that may have insufficient measures in place to keep nuclear weapons or civil nuclear reactors safe, secure, or properly regulated.

Finally, as if preempting the conclusion that established nuclear powers are beyond such concerns, the article warns that “no nation is immune from risks involving nuclear weapons and nuclear power.” By way of illustration, Drell points to more than 30 “serious accidents” involving US nuclear weapons, with a footnote citing a DoD report  (PDF) listing incidents that occurred between 1950 and 1980. In the context of the report, the DoD defines an accident as any event involving nuclear weapons in which they were accidentally launched, detonated (though not necessarily implying nuclear explosion), lost or stolen, or caused a radioactive contamination or other public hazard. (c.f. theWikipedia list of military nuclear accidents , which partly overlaps the DoD list.)

Safety, independence, and disarmament

To address theses concerns, the group makes four recommendations. The first is an almost ideological plea to nuclear enterprises and organizations, both military and civilian, to “embrace” safety and security. Though this may sound obvious, the article points out that improving safety brings with it greater regulation and cost, the implication being that such concerns might conceivably suffer if left to those with a financial interest.

This leads to the article’s second recommendation: that nuclear regulation be independent. Again using the example of the United States, Drell warns that, although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) has a reputation for high standards, attention should be paid to “regulatory capture” by vested interests, which the report claims fund “a high proportion of the NRC budget.” The NRC’s precursor, the Atomic Energy Commission, was abolished in 1974 due to such a conflict of interest……   http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/risks-from-nuclear-power-and-weapons-are-on-the-rise/