1 / 2 billion people live within 75km a nuclear site

Discussion of methods of remediation and control air quality.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

1 / 2 billion people live within 75km a nuclear site




by Obamot » 22/04/11, 22:19

In view of the recent accident in Fukushima, and 25 years ago, that of Chernobyl. Buying a home - as well as the dilemma of living near a power plant - now poses a real headache, considering the current rate of accidents [well beyond the worst-case scenarios that we were told too optimistically => power plant out of control: about one accident every ten years => including at least 4 major ones leading to extremely contaminated sites / areas, which continue to reach populations] See table below .

And the risk is not negligible => probability of one bad luck in 211, if we choose a site to build a house within 75 km of a power plant! Relatively comprehensive list of accidents right here ...>

This is unfortunately no longer something to be taken lightly! Because we have all seen, thanks to Greenpeace and a few courageous journalists, that the security zone around the Fukushima power plant extends well beyond the 20 or 30 km decreed by the Japanese government. We are not even talking about Chernobyl, which has caused cases of cancer as far as Belgium, France and even in the Nordic countries!

Based on this observation around the risks of living near a power plant, the British scientific journal «Nature» launched a study to determine the size of the populations that could be exposed, and they found that no less than 1/2 billion people would live within 75km of a nuclear reactor! (> 90 million people within 30 km!)

The million inhabitants (see more) is a situation which is not exceptional: In France, almost five million people live within 30 km of a power plant!

In the event of a major accident, the situation would be completely out of control. Several observations: there would obviously not be enough iodine pellets for everyone, the houses are not equipped with filters to stop radioactive particles. Everyone would be trapped because the petrol stations would be quickly assaulted and very quickly, the fuel would run out. Then uncontaminated food. In short, almost everyone would be trapped.

AFP - 22.04.2011 / ~ 20:00 p.m. wrote:
PARIS - More than 90 million people live within 30 km of one of the world's 211 nuclear power plants, the majority of them surrounded by a much denser population than in Fukushima, according to an analysis published Friday by the British scientific journal Nature.

Within a radius of 30 km around the damaged reactors of Fukushima 1 (Japan) lived approximately 172.000 people before the ordered or advised evacuation of this area. For two thirds of the world's power plants, the population concerned would be much higher.

Around some 21 nuclear power plants in Asia, North America, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Switzerland, there are at least one million people living within a radius of 30 km each. Six of these plants are even surrounded by more than three million people.

Nearly 16 million Americans, 9,6 million Chinese and as many Germans live within 30 km of a nuclear power plant, according to calculations made by Nature in partnership with the American University of Columbia.

In France, a country located in 7th position behind Pakistan, India and Taiwan, nearly five million people live within 30 km of a power plant, according to these calculations. In Belgium, as in Switzerland, there are around 2,2 million people.

If we take into account a 75 km radius around each reactor, it is almost half a billion inhabitants who would be potentially exposed to risk worldwide, including 111 million in the United States, more than 72 million in China and almost 57 million in India.

In Germany, 39 million people live within 75 km of a reactor, more than in Japan (32,7 million) and in France (22,4 million).

The KANNUP nuclear power plant in Karachi, in southern Pakistan, with a single 125-megawatt reactor, is the one with the most inhabitants - 8,2 million - within a radius of 30 km. Next come two major Taiwanese power stations - Kuosheng and Chin Shan - with 5,4 and 4,7 million inhabitants respectively nearby.

In Europe, the German power plants of Philippsburg and Neckarwestheim are surrounded by the largest population - 1,7 and 1,6 million inhabitants respectively - in an area of ​​30 km.

Next are Doel in Belgium and Biblis in Germany, each with 1,5 million inhabitants within 30 km. In Switzerland, the Beznau and Goesgen power plants are surrounded by one million and 960.000 inhabitants respectively in this possible exclusion zone.

Among the French power stations, that of Fessenheim is surrounded by the largest population - 931.000 people - within a radius of 30 km.

An interactive Google Earth map showing the location of each nuclear power plant and the number of people living nearby is visible on the website: www.nature.com/news/2011/110421/full/472400a/box/2.html

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved


Serious accidents and major disasters level 5 to 7
Having resulted in serious sequelae in the population => cancer deaths.

1957 - 29 September, Maïak nuclear complex with large-scale radioactive contamination on (level 6)

1957- October 7 to 12, fire at the Sellafield / Windscale Pile 1 reactor (Great Britain) used to produce military plutonium. Graphite core ignites during annealing (level 5)

1971 - November 19, a nuclear power plant in Monticello, Minnesota, a water tank overflows, releasing at least 190 m³ of contaminated water in Mississippi. Radioactive materials later enter the water supply system of the city of Saint-Paul. (level not specified)

1979 - 28 March, Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Pennsylvania. Feed pump failure! Failure of water supply pumps in the secondary circuit of one of the reactors + chain of mechanical failures, human errors and design flaws (level 5)

1986 - April 26, Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine. Following a series of human errors and due to design flaws, reactor no. 4 undergoes a core meltdown followed by an explosion, which releases large quantities of radioisotopes into the atmosphere. Water from the Pripiat River, constantly contaminated since! (level 7)

2005 - April 18, Sellafield / Windscale, England. 83 liters of highly radioactive liquefied fuel, containing about 000 tonnes of uranium and concentrated nitric acid, escaped from a crack in a pipe and spilled into a stainless steel tank containing 20 kg of plutonium in the enclosure of the Thorp reprocessing plant located in Sellafield. (level 3, but actual level unknown, because the investigation showed that the leak remained unknown for nine months => considered to be the most radioactive site in Western Europe => 2 serious accidents in <50 years!)

2011 - 12 March, Fukushima nuclear accidents, Japan. Fusion of the core, of at least 4 reactors out of six, following an earthquake and tsunami: failure of the water supply pumps of the secondary circuit of one of the reactors + chain of mechanical failures, human errors and design flaws. (level 7)

[Edit:] added the list of major accidents.
Last edited by Obamot the 23 / 04 / 11, 08: 34, 3 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 22/04/11, 22:34

In Lyon, 3 nuclear power plants less than 60 km away!
1) CNE du Bugey (35km).
2) CNE of St Alban (50km).
3) Super-Phoenix (60km).

In the event of an accident ... what to do?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 23/04/11, 02:40

Very useful this assessment, because I did not realize the population density with the multitude of power stations !!
Otherwise 75 km is very insufficient as a safety distance, it is more than a thousand km, because internal contamination has a danger under evaluated by 400 to 2000 !! !!

http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2758.pdf
and many other publications referenced in these reports.

Real fact refused with denigration by the nuclear power which should close its activity if it recognized it, like the producers of asbestos which delayed by lobbying the recognition of the dangers of asbestos, proven by diseases due to 99% by the asbestos, unlike the vast list of those due to radiation.
0 x
razputin
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 29
Registration: 26/10/12, 16:24




by razputin » 20/11/12, 15:14

75Km ca can be more than enough. After that depends on the severity level of a possible incident or accident. But in the event of a serious problem, it would take several hundred km to be quiet (and several thousand km to be saved).
0 x
razputin
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 29
Registration: 26/10/12, 16:24




by razputin » 20/11/12, 15:20

(duplicate oops)
0 x

Back to "Air Pollution and solutions against air pollution"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 48 guests