In spite of these accidents, nuclear power remains a safe source of electric power. The only accident that caused loss of life was at Chernobyl, and as I have explained here, it was an accident that could not have occurred in any other country because of the unique type of reactor. Fewer than 50 people died from the accident, even though it is expected that about 4,000 more will eventually die from cancer. This is out of a total of more than 14,500 reactor-years of experience in producing nuclear power around the world, according to the World Nuclear Association.

To put that in perspective, recall from Chapter 3 that coal mining in only the United States routinely led to over 1,000 deaths annually in the 1930s, 140 in the 1970s, and 45 in the 1990s. That is completely apart from the 2,000 annual deaths from black lung disease among miners from 1970 to 1990 and hundreds a year currently. And that is just in the United States. Currently, more than 3,000 coal miners die yearly in China, and the toll from air pollution is far greater than that (67). And, of course, there is the problem of CO2 and global warming, which will ultimately affect all people worldwide. And yet, people seem to accept this ter­rible human toll without huge demonstrations and threatening to shut down coal plants every time there is an accident. Is there something unique about radiation and nuclear power that raises fears that seem out of proportion to the actual risks?

Psychologists have done extensive analysis of how we perceive risks. In his book How Risky Is It Really, David Ropeik analyzes our perception of risk and what factors affect how strongly we perceive a risk. The list of factors that affect our risk perception includes the following: Can we trust the government or industry involved? Is the risk greater than the benefit? Do we have control? Do we have a choice? Is it natural or man-made? Does it cause pain and suffering? Is it uncer­tain? Is it catastrophic or chronic? Can it happen to me? Is it new or familiar? Does it affect children? Is it personified in an individual? Is it fair?

Nuclear power hits a lot of these hot buttons in our risk perception, making it appear to be much riskier than the objective facts would indicate that it is. After the nuclear accidents discussed here, governments and the nuclear industry were not clear in communicating what was happening, causing a widespread lack of trust that the full story was being given. People do not have a sense of personal control over nuclear power and may not feel they have much choice. We are all exposed to natural background radiation, but people are far more frightened of man-made radiation from nuclear power, even if it is lower than background levels. People are very frightened of cancer compared to heart disease, for example, because of pain and suffering, and of course radiation can cause cancer. Radiation is not well under­stood by most people, so it seems unfamiliar and adds to uncertainty. An accident can potentially be catastrophic. And it can affect children. Given all of these risk perception factors, it is no wonder that many people are afraid of radiation.

But there are no risk-free sources of energy! Nuclear power actually has a remarkably good safety record and it provides a large, carbon-dioxide-free source of electricity for much of the industrialized world. It would be nice if wind and solar could take the place of coal, but they can’t. At best, they can keep up with the growth of energy usage. I am convinced that nuclear power needs to grow in the future to reduce the dependence on coal for electricity. The new nuclear power plants being built are intrinsically much safer than the ones that were described here (see Chapter 5).

It is my hope that the information in this chapter has provided a better under­standing of the consequences of nuclear accidents so you will be able to evaluate the risks and benefits in a more objective fashion, with less of an emotional impact from the unknown and scary aspects of radiation.

NOTES

1, A nuclear accident at the small 3 MW US Army experimental reactor known as SL-1 (Stationary Low Power Plant No. 1) occurred on January 3, 1961, in Idaho. It

was caused by an operator intentionally removing the single control rod, making the reactor go critical and suffering a steam explosion that killed the three opera­tors. It was suspected, but never proven, that it was a case of nuclear suicide by the operator (1).

2. 1 petabecquerel (PBq) is equal to 1015 disintegrations per second or 0.27 megacu­ries (MCi). See Appendix B for more details on radiation units.

3. A Roentgen is a measure of exposure to X-rays or у rays. It is approximately equiva­lent to a rem.

4 . Chornobyl is a town just outside the 10 km zone and is the headquarters for the recovery effort.

5. Iodine-131-equivalent radioactivity is a comparative measure that converts other radionuclides into their equivalent radioactivity of 131I. 137Cs is multiplied by a fac­tor of 40 and 134Cs is multiplied by a factor of 4 because of their different half-lives to give their 131I equivalent.