"The NRC study assumed that 99.5% of the population within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around Peach Bottom is evacuated within 5 hours and 15 minutes after notification of the accident, and that 50% took potassium iodide tablets."
Yeah right.
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/8243137367/nrc-study-shows-the-serious-consequences-of-aJuly 29, 2011 • Comments
NRC Study Shows the Serious Consequences of a Fukushima-Type Accident in the US
| by Ed Lyman | nuclear power safety | japan nuclear |
<snip>
In part, the purpose of SOARCA was to show that such accidents would not be as bad as previous NRC studies had indicated. However, the new study shows that, at least for the 50-mile population, the average predicted risk of cancer deaths is only a factor of 3 lower than if one assumes the worst-case radiation release characteristics used in the 1982 study known as “CRAC2.” Given the large uncertainties associated with studies of this kind, a difference of a factor of 3 is not significant, so one can conclude that SOARCA essentially confirms, rather than refutes, the results of past studies.
<snip>
The NRC study assumed that 99.5% of the population within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around Peach Bottom is evacuated within 5 hours and 15 minutes after notification of the accident, and that 50% took potassium iodide tablets. The study also optimistically (and unrealistically) assumed that 20% of the public within 10 to 20 miles away also evacuate within that same time period, even though, as the report admits, “there is no warning or the notification for the public residing in this area, which is not under an evacuation order.”
<snip>
In fact, when the CRAC2 study was first released, it only provided the average values of the results of the health consequences of accidents at U.S. reactors. However, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts obtained and (together with UCS) released a file containing the worst-case results obtained by the Sandia analyses, which did not appear in the NRC report. The fact that the worst-case results were much higher than the average results caused quite a scandal at the time (see, eg, “Nuclear Study Raises Estimates Of Accident Tolls,” Washington Post, Nov. 1, 1982).
For instance, the CRAC2 average number of latent cancer deaths within 500 miles for Peach Bottom was 2,800, but the peak number turned out to be 37,000—thirteen times greater. A similar factor will likely apply to the SOARCA study’s results, so that one might expect as many as 10,000 cancer deaths within 50 miles from the short-term SBO. But just as in the days of CRAC2, the NRC has not provided the maximum values of its analyses.
<snip>
In summary, the NRC has just spent more than five years and likely a considerable sum of money to essentially reconfirm the validity of the radiological consequence analyses it has been carrying out since the 1980s. This should be a disappointment to nuclear power advocates who were expecting the study to show that the public health consequences of severe accidents were far less than previous studies had indicated. And in fact, the Fukushima accident has provided a real-world demonstration of how large a radioactive release such accidents can cause.
In responding to the UCS FOIA request, the NRC posted the draft SOARCA report on July 14, 2011. It appears in three parts:
SOARCA draft, part 1
SOARCA draft, part 2
SOARCA draft, part 3
The NYT posted a story about this study today.
Did Japan evacuate 99.5% of the people in 5 hours? I don't think so...
Two days after the accident, Forbes reported:
http://blogs.forbes.com/neilweinberg/2011/03/14/in-japan-reports-of-meltdown-fukushima-evacuation/In Japan Reports Of Meltdown, Fukushima Evacuation
Mar. 14 2011 - 10:52 pm | 9,860 views | 1 recommendation | 0 comments
Here is a description of the scene around Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant. It was reported by phone by Hitoshi Katanoda, a photographer on the scene, who minutes ago called Forbes contributor Yas Idei in Tokyo. Here is Idei’s description of the conversation:
“Hitoshi of Polaris who is near the plant just called me. It is a panic there. No way to escape as gas station are closed and rescuers are all gone.”
<snip>
Here's how the NRC knows 99.5% of people will be evacuated in 5 hours:
http://fairewinds.com/content/white-house-nrc-recommend-50-mile-fukushima-evacuation-yet-insist-us-safe-only-10<snip>
So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes a bunch of speculation and they determine that there is no way that anybody outside of 10 miles is ever going to receive an excess amount of radiation. Then they have to develop a written evacuation plan for people inside that 10 mile zone. And here is what that written plan speculates. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, school bus drivers who have families outside the 10 mile zone, will leave their families, hop in the school bus and drive INTO the nuclear accident to evacuate kids at the local high school. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, those school bus drivers will leave their families outside, drive INTO the accident to evacuate elders in elder housing. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, parents WILL NOT drive to school to rescue their kids. They will drive away from the nuclear accident and wait for the school busses to come to them.
Now it's actually a little worse than that because the most likely type of a nuclear accident is caused by a loss of offsite power. That is what happened at Fukushima: the power system AROUND the plant broke down. If that happens, not only will the plant not have power, but the street lights won't work. According to the NRC, the street lights DO work. Not only that, but your home lighting won't work and your radio and TV won't work. But according to the NRC, you will be able to contact the outside world by phones or by radio or by television.
<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
