Nuclear Energy… an instrument of clean plentiful power, and a weapon of mass destruction
Since the first successful nuclear weapons test at the Trinity test site in New Mexico in 1945
and The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was commissioned in 1958 as the first commercial nuclear reactor.
We have come a long way in the field of nuclear energy, almost always taking extreme precautions.
Unfortunately, the small amount of nuclear accidents that have occurred since nuclear power was first used has led to an inflated fear of nuclear energy.
There have also been other things along the road that have helped nuclear energy temporarily, such as the oil crisis of 1973.
The biggest event that fed this fear of nuclear accidents occurred on April 26th, 1986 about 130 km north of Kiev, Ukraine.
On that day, Reactor Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Power Complex became unstable and subsequently critical, spewing Nuclear fuel and molten Graphite over the reactor.
Soon after, the radioactive isotopes of iodine-131 with a half life of 8 days, and caesium-137 with a half life of 30 days, along with xenon gas were released into the air and contaminated the surrounding landscape.
According to greenfacts, the average dose among liquidators was around 100 milliSieverts and among evacuees from the high contamination zones, the average dose was about 33 milliSieverts.
To put this in perspective, the average radiation exposure in a year for a U.S. citizen is 6.2 milliSieverts. There's a difference between the effects of acute and chronic radiation exposure.
Since the liquidators were getting chronic radiation exposure, and it was around 100 mSv, it would have little effect.
This is supported by two quotes from the NRC website where they state "But there are no data to establish a firm link between cancer and doses below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv – 100 times the NRC limit)." and
"The effects of doses less than 10,000 mrem (100 mSv) over many years, if any, would occur at the cell level. Such changes may not be seen for many years or even decades after exposure."
The main source of casualties were the first responders and plant workers with "...134 received high radiation doses – 80,000 to 1,600,000 mrem (800 to 16,000 mSv) – and suffered from acute radiation sickness."
The effects of this increase in radiation exposure on the population was mostly undetermined with little effect found that was directly caused by the radiation.
The only notable effect of the chernobyl nuclear disaster was an increase in thyroid cancer.
The UNSCEAR 2000 report said that "apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident.
There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure."
sorry, editing goof here
There was another nuclear accident before Chernobyl.
Around 4 a.m. on March 28th 1979, near Middletown Pennsylvania, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor partially melted.
This occurred because a main feedwater pump failed and stopped delivering water to the core.
Because of this, the reactor was deprived of coolant and started to overheat. This compromised the rods that hold the fuel pellets, resulting in the fuel pellets themselves melting
The reactor vessel held, which contained a lot of the leaking radiation and also kept a hydrogen bubble that formed from coming in contact with the air, any radiation exposure to the public was minimal.
Some people point to before even Three Mile Island for an answer to the question of: Why did nuclear energy die out?
There seems to be some possible relation to the 1973 oil crisis as it put an emphasis on renewable energy.
If not for anti-nuclear supporters and environmentalists influencing nuclear energy policy around that time, the amount of nuclear power plants in the U.S. could have been much higher, and the cost to build nuclear power plants in the U.S. lower.
When the price of oil increased, america looked towards alternative sources of energy, but once oil prices dropped to normal levels, and other fuels like natural gas were used more frequently
, the need for alternative forms of energy decreased, part of the reason for the growth of nuclear energy in the 70s was out of necessity.
Even with this, you would expect nuclear energy to have made a comeback, but with little in the way of energy scarcity and a need for nuclear energy.
any growth in the amount of nuclear energy plants would be small.
Despite this, nuclear energy produces more energy than most other sources of renewable energy.
Solar is inefficient, and wind energy must be used in areas with frequent wind to be effective.
Hydroelectric must be used near running water, and solar needs light. But nuclear reactors just need the fuel pellets.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét