Concerns about nuclear powers

The use of nuclear power is controversial because ofnuclear installations in the United States. The study
the problem of storing radioactive waste forshowed no increase in the incidence of childhood
indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severeleukemia mortality in the study of surrounding
radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage,counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The
and the possibility that its use in some countries couldNCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted,
lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near
Proponents believe that these risks are small and cannuclear facilities.
be further reduced by the technology in the newHowever, in Britain there are elevated childhood
reactors. They further claim that the safety record isleukemia levels near some industrial facilities,
already good when compared to other fossil-fuelparticularly near Sellafield, where children living locally
plants, that it releases much less radioactive wasteare ten times more likely to contract the cancer. The
than coal power, and that nuclear power is areasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear,
sustainable energy source. Critics, including mostbut one study of those near Sellafield has ruled out
major environmental groups, claim nuclear power is anany contribution from nuclear sources.
uneconomic and potentially dangerous energy sourceApart from anything else, the levels of radiation at
with a limited fuel supply, especially compared tothese sites are orders of magnitude too low to
renewable energy, and dispute whether the costsaccount for the excess incidences reported. One
and risks can be reduced through new technology.explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being
Accidentsintroduced into a local community by the mass
A nuclear accident is generally considered to involvemovement of migrant workers. Likewise, small
the release of radioactive material from the vesselstudies have found an increased incidence of
and piping containing it. Examples of nuclear accidentschildhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants
include the Chernobyl disaster, the Three Mile Islandhas also been found in Germany and France .
accident, the Windscale fire, and the Mayak accident.Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in
The Chernobyl disaster was a major accident in 1986these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an
at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainianincreased risk of leukemia related to nuclear
SSR (now the Ukraine), consisting of an explosion atdischarge. The methodology and very small samples
the plant and subsequent radioactive contaminationin the studies finding an increased incidence has been
of large portions of land in Europe. It is regarded ascriticized. . Also, one study focusing on Leukemia
the worst accident ever in the history of nuclearclusters in industrial towns in England indicated a link
power. A number of workers were fatally irradiated,to high-capacity electricity lines suggesting that the
and the potential death toll among civilians is stillproduction or distribution of the electricity, rather
debated. Operator error and plant design were citedthan the nuclear reaction, may be a factor.
as a cause for the meltdown.Nuclear proliferation
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident was the worstNuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons
civilian nuclear accident outside the Soviet Union.and related technology to nations not recognized
However, the reactor vessel and containment building"Nuclear Weapon States" by the Nuclear
were not breached, even though the reactor hadNonproliferation Treaty. Opponents of civilian nuclear
suffered a partial core meltdown, so that very littlepower point out that nuclear technology may be
radiation (well below natural background radiationdual-use technology, and some of the materials and
levels) was released into the environment.[29] Thereknowledge used in a civilian nuclear program may be
were no immediate fatalities or injuries, and there isused to develop nuclear weapons.
projected to be one additional cancer in theThe military and civil purposes for nuclear energy are
population as a result of the accident (again, someintertwined in most countries with nuclear capabilities.
groups debate this).Original impetus for development of nuclear power
Design changes are being pursued to lessen the riskscame from the military nuclear programs, including the
of fission reactors; in particular, passively safe plantsearly designs of power reactors that were developed
(such as the ESBWR) are available to be built andfor nuclear submarines. In many countries nuclear and
inherently safe designs are being pursued. Fusioncivilian nuclear programs are linked, at least by
reactors which may come to exist in the futurecommon research projects and through agencies
theoretically have very little risk.such as the US DOE and French CEA. In the U.S., for
The World Nuclear Association argues that mostexample, the first goal of the Department of Energy
major forms of energy production cause deaths. Inis "to advance the national, economic, and energy
their comparison, deaths per TWy of electricitysecurity of the United States; to promote scientific
produced are 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85and technological innovation in support of that
for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear. Air pollution frommission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of
fossil fuels is argued to cause tens of thousands ofthe national nuclear weapons complex."[43]
additional deaths each year in the US alone. However,To prevent weapons proliferation, safeguards on
wind power was not included in this study, and isnuclear technology were published in the Nuclear
reputed to have caused no deaths at all.Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and monitored since
Vulnerability of plants to attack1968 by the International Atomic Energy Agency
Nuclear power plants are generally (although not(IAEA). Nations signing the treaty are required to
always) considered "hard" targets. In the US, plantsreport to the IAEA what nuclear materials they hold
are surrounded by a double row of tall fences whichand their location. They agree to accept visits by
are electronically monitored. The plant grounds areIAEA auditors and inspectors to verify independently
patrolled by a sizeable force of armed guards.[citationtheir material reports and physically inspect the
needed] The NRC's "Design Basis Threat" criteria fornuclear materials concerned to confirm physical
plants is a secret, and so what size attacking forceinventories of them in exchange for access to
the plants are able to protect against is unknown.nuclear materials and equipment on the global market.
However, to Scram a plant takes less than 5 secondsSeveral states did not sign the treaty and were able
while unimpeded restart takes hours, severelyto use international nuclear technology (often
hampering a terrorist force in a goal to releaseprocured for civilian purposes) to develop nuclear
radioactivity.weapons (India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). Of
Attack from the air is a more problematic concern.those who have signed the treaty and received
The most important barrier against the release ofshipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many states have
radioactivity in the event of an aircraft strike is theeither claimed to, or been accused of, attempting to
containment building and its missile shield. The NRC'suse supposedly civilian nuclear power plants for
Chairman has said "Nuclear power plants aredeveloping weapons. Certain types of reactors may
inherently robust structures that our studies showbe more conducive to producing nuclear weapons
provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attackmaterials than others, such as possible future fast
by an airplane. The NRC has also taken actions thatbreeder reactors, and a number of international
require nuclear power plant operators to be able todisputes over proliferation have centered on the
manage large fires or explosions - no matter whatspecific model of reactor being contracted for in a
has caused them."country suspected of nuclear weapon ambitions.
In addition, supporters point to large studies carriedThere is concern in some countries over North Korea
out by NRC and other agencies that tested theand Iran operating research reactors and fuel
robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage,enrichment plants, since those countries refuse
and found that they should be able to sustain aadequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be
terrorist attack comparable to the September 11trying to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea
terrorist attacks in the USA. Spent fuel is usuallyadmits that it is developing nuclear weapons, while
housed inside the plant's "protected zone" or a spentthe Iranian government vehemently denies the claims
nuclear fuel shipping cask; stealing it for use in a "dirtyagainst Iran.
bomb" is extremely difficult. Exposure to the intenseSome proponents of nuclear power agree that the
radiation would almost certainly quickly incapacitate orrisk of nuclear proliferation may be a reason to
kill any terrorists who attempt to do so.prevent nondemocratic developing nations from
Nuclear power plants are designed to withstandgaining any nuclear technology but argue that this is
threats deemed credible at the time of licensing.no reason for democratic developed nations to
However, as weapons evolve it cannot be saidabandon their nuclear power plants, especially in the
unequivocably that within the 60 year life of a plant itlight of the democratic peace theory, which argues
will not become vulnerable. Safety against airplanesthat democracies refrain from war against each
became an issue only after the September 11other. There is, however, always the risk that
attacks. There is no knowing what other methods willinformation of new technologies will be stolen and
be thought of over the next few hundreds or evenmade public (e.g. on the Internet), making it ever
thousands of years. The airplane itself is only oneeasier for any country to build its own nuclear
century old. Also, storage sites may be wellfacilities. However, all power sources and technology
protected now, but if that remains the case willcan be used to produce and use weapons. The
strongly depend on political developments which areweapons of mass destruction used in chemical
impossible to predict.warfare and biological warfare are not dependent on
Other forms of energy production are also vulnerablenuclear power. Humans could still make war even if all
to attack, such as hydroelectric dams and LNGtechnology was forbidden.
tankers.Proponents also note that nuclear power, like some
Use of waste byproduct as a weaponother power sources, provides steady energy at a
Opponents of nuclear power express concerns thatconsistent price without competing for energy
nuclear waste is not well protected, and that it canresources from other countries, something that may
be possible be used as a terrorist weapon, as a dirtycontribute to wars.[citation needed]
bomb, quoting a 1999 Russian incident whereConcerns about floating nuclear plants
workers were caught trying to sell 5 grams ofRussia has begun building the world’s first
radioactive material on the open market, or thefloating nuclear power plant. The £100 million
incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caughtvessel, the Lomonosov, is the first of seven plants
selling 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium. The UN hasthat Moscow says will bring vital energy resources to
since called upon world leaders to improve security inremote Russian regions.
order to prevent radioactive material falling into theEnvironmental groups and nuclear experts are
hands of terrorists. Proponents of nuclear powerconcerned that floating nuclear plants will be more
argue, however, that a dirty bomb is not a veryvulnerable to accidents and terrorism than land-based
effective weapon and would cause relatively fewstations. They point to a history of naval and nuclear
casualties, although the psychological impact would beaccidents in Russia and the former Soviet Union,
high.including the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Russia does
Health effect on population near nuclear plantshave 50 years of experience operating a fleet of
Most of the human exposure to radiation comesnuclear powered icebreakers that are also used for
from natural background radiation. Most of thescientific and arctic tourism expeditions.
remaining exposure comes from medical procedures.The Russians have commented that a nuclear reactor
Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europethat sinks, such as the similar reactor involved in the
have found no evidence of any increase in cancerKursk explosion, can be raised and probably put back
mortality among people living near nuclear facilities.into operation.[citation needed]
For example, in 1990, the National Cancer InstituteAt this time it is not known what, if any, containment
(NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announcedstructure or associated missile shield will be built on
that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortalitythe ship. The Russians believe that an airliner striking
from 16 types of cancer, found no increasedthe ship would not destroy the reactor.
incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62