Agenda
Strengthening global security and preparedness for nuclear disasters
The Worthy
The right type of nuclear fuel is one that is efficient, clean, safe, and abundant in nature; one more criteria in this case: worthy (of all the trouble). Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), writes on the exciting prospective of using Thorium as the new age fissionable material.
Nuclear energy has had humans on the edge of their seats for quite some time; the reason being a chance at cleaner energy. For once, we could all clean up our unruly mess. Yes, it is disappointing to see almost-demagogues preach that there does not exist any trace of human-made mess for us to clean up. However, it needs to be known that dangers aside, nuclear energy could really be the most viable solution to curbing the global warming caused by traditional energy production. Radioactive waste is harmful to the surroundings (as in the place it is stored in), while pollution from coal is out there in the open. One cannot simply contain the direct expulsion of cancer-causing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by storing it in standard labelled barrels.
The growth in the field of nuclear science has taken a dip, and it has been this way since 1980. [1] Reasons for this stagnation could be due to the need for new technology in the design of nuclear reactors. A lot of the ideas that seemed to fit the bill looked good, but only on paper. Another concern regarding the promotion of nuclear energy is that there is not a lot of difference between the technology required for a reactor, and that of a weapons development facility. In addition, the nuclear waste from the reactor could either be re-processed (after a period of time that has not yet been determined [2]), or it could be utilised into building a quickie missile.
Humans are still ages away from being able to mimic the fusion reaction that powers the sun. So, we shall stick to what we know best – division. Coming to the selection of nuclear fuel, there exists a limited range of radioactive elements that can be used in the process of fission: Uranium-235 (U-235), Plutonium-239 (Pu-239), and Thorium-232 (Th-232). [3] Traditionally, U-235 is used in a light-water reactor, where the water powers the turbine and stabilises the reaction. One must remember that the highly enriched Uranium is indispensable in making weapons, and so is Plutonium. Thorium reactors, on the other hand, will perhaps be our one-way ride to the future. The fission reaction does not produce the amount of enriched Uranium or Plutonium required to build nuclear weapons. [4]
Molten salt reactors that utilise Thorium have been studied by many scientists all over the world. Eugene Wigner, from the Project Manhattan, envisioned the usage of these reactors as Fluoride salt mixtures are known for the chemical stability. In 1968, a model of this reactor was tested in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the United States of America (USA). These liquid Fluoride reactors are better equipped to handle failure than the previous reactors like the light-water reactor. The benefits of using Thorium caught the attention of the science community and so, the International Thorium Energy Committee (iTEC) was founded. Thorium is more abundantly found on the Earth’s crust than Uranium. Interestingly, Thorium is classified as fissionable, and not fissile, as in the fission reaction is not as spontaneous and explosive as Uranium; it can be safely initiated by bombarding the nuclei with neutrons. [5] The waste expelled from the fission is significantly lesser than that of conventional fission reactions.
Alvin Weinberg from Oak Ridge had been quick to see the oodles of locked potential. He believed that Thorium came close to erasing all the issues related to the usage of nuclear energy. A clean planet with a reduced possibility of proliferation – that was supposed to be the dream. Weinberg lost his title as Director, as his “attitudes” were not met with agreement. The government of the USA closed the project in 1973. This goes on to prove that whether the government regarded Thorium as the best fuel or not, they did believe that Thorium reactions would not give them nuclear weapons.
The most stressful dilemma with the usage of nuclear energy has been the fear of a mask that hides nuclear weapons. The possibility of a toxic winter haunts the hearts of many, and living proof of radioactive mutations justifies the fear. The usage of Thorium would draw the line; the actual agenda of the nuclear program of your country will be out in the open. Many countries have started drawing up plans, and the Republic of India takes the wheel as it boldly seeks to achieve 30% of the energy needs of the country through Thorium-reactor plants, by 2050. [5]
The issue, however, is that humans do not have a deep understanding of Thorium. (Now, whose fault is that?) Thorium, clearly, demands to be explored; all it lacks is the magic of human-touch. Adopting a new look at Thorium could help the human race advance towards cleaner energy for the progeny, while promoting global security. Thorium has proven to be worthy of further research, but is humankind worthy of lifting it?
Sources:
[1]http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/energy-wage-and-technology-stagnation.html
[2]http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security/nuclear-reprocessing#.WMFwyDt942w
[3]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fission.html
[4]https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html
[5]http://www.mining.com/why-not-thorium/
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Nuclear energy has had humans on the edge of their seats for quite some time; the reason being a chance at cleaner energy. For once, we could all clean up our unruly mess. Yes, it is disappointing to see almost-demagogues preach that there does not exist any trace of human-made mess for us to clean up. However, it needs to be known that dangers aside, nuclear energy could really be the most viable solution to curbing the global warming caused by traditional energy production. Radioactive waste is harmful to the surroundings (as in the place it is stored in), while pollution from coal is out there in the open. One cannot simply contain the direct expulsion of cancer-causing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by storing it in standard labelled barrels.
The growth in the field of nuclear science has taken a dip, and it has been this way since 1980. [1] Reasons for this stagnation could be due to the need for new technology in the design of nuclear reactors. A lot of the ideas that seemed to fit the bill looked good, but only on paper. Another concern regarding the promotion of nuclear energy is that there is not a lot of difference between the technology required for a reactor, and that of a weapons development facility. In addition, the nuclear waste from the reactor could either be re-processed (after a period of time that has not yet been determined [2]), or it could be utilised into building a quickie missile.
Humans are still ages away from being able to mimic the fusion reaction that powers the sun. So, we shall stick to what we know best – division. Coming to the selection of nuclear fuel, there exists a limited range of radioactive elements that can be used in the process of fission: Uranium-235 (U-235), Plutonium-239 (Pu-239), and Thorium-232 (Th-232). [3] Traditionally, U-235 is used in a light-water reactor, where the water powers the turbine and stabilises the reaction. One must remember that the highly enriched Uranium is indispensable in making weapons, and so is Plutonium. Thorium reactors, on the other hand, will perhaps be our one-way ride to the future. The fission reaction does not produce the amount of enriched Uranium or Plutonium required to build nuclear weapons. [4]
Molten salt reactors that utilise Thorium have been studied by many scientists all over the world. Eugene Wigner, from the Project Manhattan, envisioned the usage of these reactors as Fluoride salt mixtures are known for the chemical stability. In 1968, a model of this reactor was tested in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the United States of America (USA). These liquid Fluoride reactors are better equipped to handle failure than the previous reactors like the light-water reactor. The benefits of using Thorium caught the attention of the science community and so, the International Thorium Energy Committee (iTEC) was founded. Thorium is more abundantly found on the Earth’s crust than Uranium. Interestingly, Thorium is classified as fissionable, and not fissile, as in the fission reaction is not as spontaneous and explosive as Uranium; it can be safely initiated by bombarding the nuclei with neutrons. [5] The waste expelled from the fission is significantly lesser than that of conventional fission reactions.
Alvin Weinberg from Oak Ridge had been quick to see the oodles of locked potential. He believed that Thorium came close to erasing all the issues related to the usage of nuclear energy. A clean planet with a reduced possibility of proliferation – that was supposed to be the dream. Weinberg lost his title as Director, as his “attitudes” were not met with agreement. The government of the USA closed the project in 1973. This goes on to prove that whether the government regarded Thorium as the best fuel or not, they did believe that Thorium reactions would not give them nuclear weapons.
The most stressful dilemma with the usage of nuclear energy has been the fear of a mask that hides nuclear weapons. The possibility of a toxic winter haunts the hearts of many, and living proof of radioactive mutations justifies the fear. The usage of Thorium would draw the line; the actual agenda of the nuclear program of your country will be out in the open. Many countries have started drawing up plans, and the Republic of India takes the wheel as it boldly seeks to achieve 30% of the energy needs of the country through Thorium-reactor plants, by 2050. [5]
The issue, however, is that humans do not have a deep understanding of Thorium. (Now, whose fault is that?) Thorium, clearly, demands to be explored; all it lacks is the magic of human-touch. Adopting a new look at Thorium could help the human race advance towards cleaner energy for the progeny, while promoting global security. Thorium has proven to be worthy of further research, but is humankind worthy of lifting it?
Sources:
[1]http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/energy-wage-and-technology-stagnation.html
[2]http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security/nuclear-reprocessing#.WMFwyDt942w
[3]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fission.html
[4]https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html
[5]http://www.mining.com/why-not-thorium/
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Safety First!
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), chronicles a discussion on nuclear safety and security.
Having identified the areas of discussion, the delegates moved to debate on the various ways by which they could improve the global standards of nuclear safety and security. The delegates covered many aspects of this particular debate.
One major aspect of the debate was the issue of transparency. Keeping in mind, that certain nations may indulge in building of unreported nuclear facilities, the delegates of the council were mostly on the same note with regards to this issue. The Delegate of Republic of Iraq, however, had the strongest opinion on this topic. He said that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) never shared any information with the international community, regarding the nuclear facilities, and believed that without mutual transparency, the issue could not be resolved.
The second major aspect of the debate was that of automation. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran brought up the example of the Stuxnet worm, which had caused substantial damage to their nuclear program. The Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany believed that complete automation, in the age of cyber-terrorism, was impractical. He believed human interaction was of utmost importance. The Delegate of the Hellenic Republic of Greece believed that a sweet spot must be found between human interaction and automation that would neither put lives at stake, nor leave the facilities vulnerable to cyber attacks. The Delegate of the Republic of Portugal suggested that highly secure servers be used in nuclear facilities, to shield them from cyber threats.
The other aspect of discussion was that of the personnel employed in nuclear facilities. The Delegate of Algeria recommended conducting regular medical check ups to ensure the health of these personnel. The Delegate of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg suggested that the personnel must be employed directly by the IAEA, and not the nuclear regulatory authorities of the various nations. He also believed that these personnel must receive adequate training before they are deployed at such facilities.
Certain other points were also brought up. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea believed that a monetary penalty could be imposed on the nations found in non-compliance with the IAEA guidelines. He went on to state that unbiased inspections could be conducted, by the IAEA, to make sure they do so. Other delegates also touched upon the aspect of nuclear terrorism. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan believed that anti-terrorism exercises should be conducted to prevent nuclear terrorism. The Delegate of the Republic of Portugal added to this, by saying that adequate military security must be provided to these plants to make sure a grave situation does not occur.
The committee was able to come up with interesting ways of strengthening nuclear security. They seemed to come into a consensus regarding most points, and thus moved in the right direction with their debate.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Having identified the areas of discussion, the delegates moved to debate on the various ways by which they could improve the global standards of nuclear safety and security. The delegates covered many aspects of this particular debate.
One major aspect of the debate was the issue of transparency. Keeping in mind, that certain nations may indulge in building of unreported nuclear facilities, the delegates of the council were mostly on the same note with regards to this issue. The Delegate of Republic of Iraq, however, had the strongest opinion on this topic. He said that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) never shared any information with the international community, regarding the nuclear facilities, and believed that without mutual transparency, the issue could not be resolved.
The second major aspect of the debate was that of automation. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran brought up the example of the Stuxnet worm, which had caused substantial damage to their nuclear program. The Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany believed that complete automation, in the age of cyber-terrorism, was impractical. He believed human interaction was of utmost importance. The Delegate of the Hellenic Republic of Greece believed that a sweet spot must be found between human interaction and automation that would neither put lives at stake, nor leave the facilities vulnerable to cyber attacks. The Delegate of the Republic of Portugal suggested that highly secure servers be used in nuclear facilities, to shield them from cyber threats.
The other aspect of discussion was that of the personnel employed in nuclear facilities. The Delegate of Algeria recommended conducting regular medical check ups to ensure the health of these personnel. The Delegate of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg suggested that the personnel must be employed directly by the IAEA, and not the nuclear regulatory authorities of the various nations. He also believed that these personnel must receive adequate training before they are deployed at such facilities.
Certain other points were also brought up. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea believed that a monetary penalty could be imposed on the nations found in non-compliance with the IAEA guidelines. He went on to state that unbiased inspections could be conducted, by the IAEA, to make sure they do so. Other delegates also touched upon the aspect of nuclear terrorism. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan believed that anti-terrorism exercises should be conducted to prevent nuclear terrorism. The Delegate of the Republic of Portugal added to this, by saying that adequate military security must be provided to these plants to make sure a grave situation does not occur.
The committee was able to come up with interesting ways of strengthening nuclear security. They seemed to come into a consensus regarding most points, and thus moved in the right direction with their debate.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
We Are Ready
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), tries to weigh in on the level of preparedness, of the various nations, in case of nuclear disasters.
As the delegates discussed various ways of strengthening nuclear security frameworks, the reporter believed that it would be interesting to find out each nation’s opinion on their safety measures. An opinion poll was conducted and the delegates were asked the following question,
“Is your nation adequately equipped to handle nuclear disasters similar to the Fukushima disaster?”
Seventeen delegates believed that their nations were equipped to handle such a disaster. Another 17 delegates believed that their nations were not equipped to do so. Furthermore, 12 delegates refrained from answering the question.
It is interesting to note that, out of the 31 nations that currently use nuclear power, only the Republic of Korea believed that their nation was not capable of handling such a disaster. Out of the 17 nations that voted yes, the Republic of Tunisia was the sole nation that has no current nuclear reactors operational. All of the delegates, who refrained to comment, were from nations that had no operational nuclear programs.
This shows that the nations currently harnessing nuclear energy are confident of handling adverse situations, whereas, nations that believe that they are incapable of doing so, have stayed clear of it. No matter how interesting it is to note these statistics, the true readiness of the former can only be tested when such a grave situation arises in real time. Still, it is commendable that the delegates are willing to discuss further steps to prevent such disasters.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranrayanan).
As the delegates discussed various ways of strengthening nuclear security frameworks, the reporter believed that it would be interesting to find out each nation’s opinion on their safety measures. An opinion poll was conducted and the delegates were asked the following question,
“Is your nation adequately equipped to handle nuclear disasters similar to the Fukushima disaster?”
Seventeen delegates believed that their nations were equipped to handle such a disaster. Another 17 delegates believed that their nations were not equipped to do so. Furthermore, 12 delegates refrained from answering the question.
It is interesting to note that, out of the 31 nations that currently use nuclear power, only the Republic of Korea believed that their nation was not capable of handling such a disaster. Out of the 17 nations that voted yes, the Republic of Tunisia was the sole nation that has no current nuclear reactors operational. All of the delegates, who refrained to comment, were from nations that had no operational nuclear programs.
This shows that the nations currently harnessing nuclear energy are confident of handling adverse situations, whereas, nations that believe that they are incapable of doing so, have stayed clear of it. No matter how interesting it is to note these statistics, the true readiness of the former can only be tested when such a grave situation arises in real time. Still, it is commendable that the delegates are willing to discuss further steps to prevent such disasters.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranrayanan).
In Case of an Emergency
Nuclear disasters tend to have devastating repercussions, all at once. Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), covers the proceedings of the council.
“Prevention is better than cure” is not a statement that works during an unforeseen catastrophe. Nuclear technology, especially, requires the world to be prepared for the worst. Being crucial in the dialogue of global security, the topic of emergency preparedness for nuclear disasters was proposed by the Delegate of the United States of America (USA).
Mistakes made in the past were discussed by the delegates of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria). The example taken was that of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor. The Delegate of Iran spoke on the lack of real-time information and its consequences, along with the role of foreign authorities in the provision of emergency aid. The Delegate suggested that the IAEA should be the primary body governing information. In contrast, the Delegate of the Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon) seemed to believe that another inter-agency would improve the information sharing. The Delegate of the USA called for more emphasis on the member states’ contributions to the Response Assistance Network (RANET).
The consequences of a disaster, along with immediate measures, were put forward by the Delegate of the State of Israel (Israel). Testing radiation levels in rivers, food sources, and shallow burial lands would prove effective in a comprehensive analysis of the extent of the emergency at hand, and this opinion was met with agreement from the delegates of the French Republic (France), Cameroon, and the Republic of Peru (Peru).
Civilians should become familiar with evacuation procedures, perhaps through mock drills, in order to minimise the death toll. The Delegate of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in addition to the previous measure, pressed upon the need for the rationing of food and water kits in case of emergencies. Furthermore, the Delegate of the Republic of Kazakhstan mentioned that it would help if the people living within a 100-mile radius of a plant had access to a simple device that would monitor the radiation levels. The harms of secondary radiation were discussed at length, by the Delegate of Peru.
The Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) proposed the formation of a separate international emergency response committee with the mandate of prioritising a particular on-going crisis. Following this, the Delegate of the Russian Federation (Russia) spoke on the importance of prompt national review of emergency response, and timely fact-finding missions initiated by the IAEA itself.
As the committee moved on to discuss specific systems that could be employed in the future, the Delegate of the Republic of Tunisia (Tunisia) suggested the usage of passive systems, and called for the analysis of parameters such as gravitation and natural convection. An atmospheric plume model for real-time modelling was suggested by the Delegate of the USA. When the Delegate of the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia) suggested the use of an anti-missile protection system stationed outside a nuclear power plant, the Director questioned the relevance of such a system.
To sum up, the delegates discussed the lessons learnt from the past, provision of immediate relief to victims, and different measures along with their effectiveness in a disaster.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
“Prevention is better than cure” is not a statement that works during an unforeseen catastrophe. Nuclear technology, especially, requires the world to be prepared for the worst. Being crucial in the dialogue of global security, the topic of emergency preparedness for nuclear disasters was proposed by the Delegate of the United States of America (USA).
Mistakes made in the past were discussed by the delegates of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria). The example taken was that of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor. The Delegate of Iran spoke on the lack of real-time information and its consequences, along with the role of foreign authorities in the provision of emergency aid. The Delegate suggested that the IAEA should be the primary body governing information. In contrast, the Delegate of the Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon) seemed to believe that another inter-agency would improve the information sharing. The Delegate of the USA called for more emphasis on the member states’ contributions to the Response Assistance Network (RANET).
The consequences of a disaster, along with immediate measures, were put forward by the Delegate of the State of Israel (Israel). Testing radiation levels in rivers, food sources, and shallow burial lands would prove effective in a comprehensive analysis of the extent of the emergency at hand, and this opinion was met with agreement from the delegates of the French Republic (France), Cameroon, and the Republic of Peru (Peru).
Civilians should become familiar with evacuation procedures, perhaps through mock drills, in order to minimise the death toll. The Delegate of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in addition to the previous measure, pressed upon the need for the rationing of food and water kits in case of emergencies. Furthermore, the Delegate of the Republic of Kazakhstan mentioned that it would help if the people living within a 100-mile radius of a plant had access to a simple device that would monitor the radiation levels. The harms of secondary radiation were discussed at length, by the Delegate of Peru.
The Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) proposed the formation of a separate international emergency response committee with the mandate of prioritising a particular on-going crisis. Following this, the Delegate of the Russian Federation (Russia) spoke on the importance of prompt national review of emergency response, and timely fact-finding missions initiated by the IAEA itself.
As the committee moved on to discuss specific systems that could be employed in the future, the Delegate of the Republic of Tunisia (Tunisia) suggested the usage of passive systems, and called for the analysis of parameters such as gravitation and natural convection. An atmospheric plume model for real-time modelling was suggested by the Delegate of the USA. When the Delegate of the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia) suggested the use of an anti-missile protection system stationed outside a nuclear power plant, the Director questioned the relevance of such a system.
To sum up, the delegates discussed the lessons learnt from the past, provision of immediate relief to victims, and different measures along with their effectiveness in a disaster.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
We Were Not PrepareD
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is moved by a passionate speech made by the Ukrainian delegate.
Anatoliy Tereschenko was a schoolteacher. He taught kindergarten students in the cozy little village of Kopachi. He was also my grandfather. He was a good man, a kind man. I was eight years old when it all happened.
On 26 April 1986, Ukraine went into meltdown. Technically, a steam explosion had occurred in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Pripyat. We had received a call from my grandfather, saying that there was a situation in Chernobyl, and the local authorities had started evacuation procedures. We had tried to bring him home to Kiev as soon as possible. But the damage had been done.
Kopachi was not too far away from Chernobyl. And the radiation leak had been massive. He had been affected but we could not know. We did find out eventually. He was afflicted with thyroid cancer, one of the most common health impacts of Chernobyl accident. He suffered for six years, until he finally ascended to the heavens. He was not the only case. According to a 2009 report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the accident had caused 61,200 man-Sv of radiation exposure to recovery workers and evacuees by the year 2005. It had caused 125,000 man-Sv to the populace of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. The total global collective dose is estimated to be 600,000 man-Sv, which equates to approximately 21 days of world exposure to natural background radiation.
So what exactly went wrong? To put it quite bluntly, we were not prepared. Ukraine was unequipped to handle Chernobyl, which is the only other nuclear disaster to be classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The first major issue that triggered the accident was an inherent design flaw in the reactor. Secondly, the safety systems were deliberately turned off, in order to conduct a stress test. Well, it does make sense that a stress test would test the limits of the facility but not at this cost.
Shortly after the accident, firefighters were sent to extinguish the fires caused by the explosion. The firefighters were not informed that the smoke was radioactive. The city of Pripyat was not immediately evacuated either. A few hours after the explosion, people reportedly fell sick. They claimed to have severe headaches and metallic tastes in their mouth. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was run by Russian authorities and, hence, information was not received by the Ukrainian government.
Parallels can be drawn to Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which is the only other level 7 nuclear accident. The Japanese were not prepared either. They had failed to account for natural disasters. The tsunami flooded the back up generators of the plant and they were unable to pump out the water. Secondly, the issue of passage of information occurred here too.
Global preparedness for nuclear disasters is a serious issue. Even after the accident in 1986, we have failed to prevent a disaster of similar levels occurring. We had been given 25 years to adequately prepare for such situations. Yet, human nature prevailed over logic. The Japanese had been quoted saying that the one major thought that was always on their mind was their technological infallibility. They believed, foolishly, in their ability to cope with disasters and were proved wrong. Many a life has been lost due to this train of thought.
I have lost someone close to my heart. And I stand here today, as a delegate in the IAEA, with the aim of making sure that we are never unprepared.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan)
Anatoliy Tereschenko was a schoolteacher. He taught kindergarten students in the cozy little village of Kopachi. He was also my grandfather. He was a good man, a kind man. I was eight years old when it all happened.
On 26 April 1986, Ukraine went into meltdown. Technically, a steam explosion had occurred in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Pripyat. We had received a call from my grandfather, saying that there was a situation in Chernobyl, and the local authorities had started evacuation procedures. We had tried to bring him home to Kiev as soon as possible. But the damage had been done.
Kopachi was not too far away from Chernobyl. And the radiation leak had been massive. He had been affected but we could not know. We did find out eventually. He was afflicted with thyroid cancer, one of the most common health impacts of Chernobyl accident. He suffered for six years, until he finally ascended to the heavens. He was not the only case. According to a 2009 report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the accident had caused 61,200 man-Sv of radiation exposure to recovery workers and evacuees by the year 2005. It had caused 125,000 man-Sv to the populace of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. The total global collective dose is estimated to be 600,000 man-Sv, which equates to approximately 21 days of world exposure to natural background radiation.
So what exactly went wrong? To put it quite bluntly, we were not prepared. Ukraine was unequipped to handle Chernobyl, which is the only other nuclear disaster to be classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The first major issue that triggered the accident was an inherent design flaw in the reactor. Secondly, the safety systems were deliberately turned off, in order to conduct a stress test. Well, it does make sense that a stress test would test the limits of the facility but not at this cost.
Shortly after the accident, firefighters were sent to extinguish the fires caused by the explosion. The firefighters were not informed that the smoke was radioactive. The city of Pripyat was not immediately evacuated either. A few hours after the explosion, people reportedly fell sick. They claimed to have severe headaches and metallic tastes in their mouth. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was run by Russian authorities and, hence, information was not received by the Ukrainian government.
Parallels can be drawn to Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which is the only other level 7 nuclear accident. The Japanese were not prepared either. They had failed to account for natural disasters. The tsunami flooded the back up generators of the plant and they were unable to pump out the water. Secondly, the issue of passage of information occurred here too.
Global preparedness for nuclear disasters is a serious issue. Even after the accident in 1986, we have failed to prevent a disaster of similar levels occurring. We had been given 25 years to adequately prepare for such situations. Yet, human nature prevailed over logic. The Japanese had been quoted saying that the one major thought that was always on their mind was their technological infallibility. They believed, foolishly, in their ability to cope with disasters and were proved wrong. Many a life has been lost due to this train of thought.
I have lost someone close to my heart. And I stand here today, as a delegate in the IAEA, with the aim of making sure that we are never unprepared.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan)
Coffee with China
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has a dialogue with the Delegate of the People’s Republic of China.
Q: You had cancelled the plans on building a power plant in Heshan, because of opposition by the public. Do you think this project can be continued in the future?
A: China as a country has always respected and given equal rights to the people. If the people do not want a power plant in that region, then China will not construct a facility there.
Q: Do you not think that the concerns of the people can be addressed, in this regard?
A: If the concerns of the people are valid, and the issues that are raised are fixable, then we could look into the construction of a facility.
Q: Concerns are being raised that cost cutting and corruption could end up in safety lapses. Do you think the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) could effectively police such practises?
A: Yes, the NNSA can effectively do what is necessary to address these concerns.
Q: What are the steps being taken to do so?
A: Corruption is a very dangerous issue that China is facing. We will take steps, that we plan on implementing, through a legal framework. China is currently in process of making a framework, which involves fighting measures against corruption.
Q: China has harboured plans of becoming a reactor exporter, through Hualong One. Do you think potential buyers can safely handle such an advanced reactor?
A: Yes. The reactor is being designed with various safety measures. For example, the reactors in Japan were able to resist the effect of the tsunami and the radiation too was withstood. So, China is also in the process in designing a reactor that is able to withstand a natural disaster, while also being as efficient as possible.
Q: Currently, your methodology for storing Spent Nuclear Fuel is sustainable only until the mid 2020s. Have you come up with a newer policy for disposal?
A: As of now, China is only considering reprocessing. We are making innovations in technology for the same process. When it comes to reprocessing, there are various ways to implement this. For example, China has recently come up with a water treatment plant, which uses radiation. Radiation from the waste of nuclear power plants can be used to implement in treating water from the textile industry. Since our textile industry is booming, we could apply it there.
Q: Do you think that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should push nations towards research in usage of thorium, to prevent the misuse of uranium, in their nuclear programs?
A: Yes. Uranium is highly misused. Thorium can be used as a replacement because the conditions for using it are similar to that of uranium.
Q: So, do you believe that the NPT can be amended to make the signatories use thorium?
A: If it is viable, then yes.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Q: You had cancelled the plans on building a power plant in Heshan, because of opposition by the public. Do you think this project can be continued in the future?
A: China as a country has always respected and given equal rights to the people. If the people do not want a power plant in that region, then China will not construct a facility there.
Q: Do you not think that the concerns of the people can be addressed, in this regard?
A: If the concerns of the people are valid, and the issues that are raised are fixable, then we could look into the construction of a facility.
Q: Concerns are being raised that cost cutting and corruption could end up in safety lapses. Do you think the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) could effectively police such practises?
A: Yes, the NNSA can effectively do what is necessary to address these concerns.
Q: What are the steps being taken to do so?
A: Corruption is a very dangerous issue that China is facing. We will take steps, that we plan on implementing, through a legal framework. China is currently in process of making a framework, which involves fighting measures against corruption.
Q: China has harboured plans of becoming a reactor exporter, through Hualong One. Do you think potential buyers can safely handle such an advanced reactor?
A: Yes. The reactor is being designed with various safety measures. For example, the reactors in Japan were able to resist the effect of the tsunami and the radiation too was withstood. So, China is also in the process in designing a reactor that is able to withstand a natural disaster, while also being as efficient as possible.
Q: Currently, your methodology for storing Spent Nuclear Fuel is sustainable only until the mid 2020s. Have you come up with a newer policy for disposal?
A: As of now, China is only considering reprocessing. We are making innovations in technology for the same process. When it comes to reprocessing, there are various ways to implement this. For example, China has recently come up with a water treatment plant, which uses radiation. Radiation from the waste of nuclear power plants can be used to implement in treating water from the textile industry. Since our textile industry is booming, we could apply it there.
Q: Do you think that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should push nations towards research in usage of thorium, to prevent the misuse of uranium, in their nuclear programs?
A: Yes. Uranium is highly misused. Thorium can be used as a replacement because the conditions for using it are similar to that of uranium.
Q: So, do you believe that the NPT can be amended to make the signatories use thorium?
A: If it is viable, then yes.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
A Bank for Nuclear Families
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), offers his insight on nuclear fuel banks.
One among the most common criticisms, raised against the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is the issue of nuclear fissile material. A facility that can produce low-enriched uranium, which can be used for generating nuclear power, can also produce high-enriched uranium, which is suitable for nuclear weapons. Hence, by allowing nations to enrich uranium for supposed peaceful purposes, we put ourselves at the risk of allowing nations to stockpile nuclear armaments. Hence, the creation of a world nuclear bank was proposed.
The agreement in 2009, between the United States of America (USA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), could serve as an example for such a bank. Based on this agreement, USA would supply UAE with low-enriched uranium, on the condition that the latter would never enrich, or reprocess, nuclear material. Such an agreement eliminated the possibility of UAE engaging in nuclear arms proliferation. The idea of establishing an international nuclear bank has been floating around in the international community for quite a while, albeit, without much popularity. Let us take a look as to why it should be a popular idea.
In a study conducted by the faculty of Stanford University, it was found out that the cost of constructing a facility, to enrich uranium, would cost around 250 million to 3.3 billion dollars. This is an extremely large amount of money, which has immense applications elsewhere. The cost may fluctuate based on factors such as geographical location, capacity, et cetera. Developing nations cannot invest such obscene amounts of money. These nations would face heavy economic constraints, or would have to resort to financial assistants from other nations, to make such investments. For countries newly pursuing nuclear power, the existence of an international fuel bank can improve the economic viability of nuclear power.
Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, a fair few nations have put their nuclear programs on hold. Many nations have faced dissenting opinions from their people on the use of nuclear energy. For example, the Republic of India faced heavy opposition from the locals when they decided to go ahead with the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) had also seen the outbreak of protests, over the construction of the Heshan Nuclear Power Industry Park. PRC went on to cancel the project, which was supposed to be state-funded. Governments that wish to continue in their pursuit of nuclear energy could seek assistance from a nuclear fuel bank. This could help in assuaging concerns over the safety of nuclear facilities.
Another argument in favor of the creation of a nuclear energy bank is that of nuclear security. An international energy bank can tackle the issues related to nuclear security, such as physical security. The nuclear fuel bank could help developing nations in ensuring that the enrichment facilities are secure, while allowing the potential customer nation to devote the entirety of their resources in keeping their nuclear power plants secure.
The final concern, that the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank addresses, is that of the loopholes in the current methodology for non-proliferation. As discussed earlier, by furnishing a potential customer nation with low-enriched uranium, the possibility of a nation attempting to produce high-enrich uranium is significantly lower. Even though the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank cannot comprehensively address all the qualms, that the various nations have towards the NPT, this can be a very good step in the right direction and these steps are indeed being taken.
In 27 August 2015, the IAEA and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up a low-enriched uranium fuel bank in Oskemen, Kazakhstan. Operations are expected to begin in 2017, and a physical reserve of low-enriched uranium is to be created. The bank will store up to 90 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, which would be sufficient to run a 1000 MWe light-water reactor. Andrew Weber, the then principal advisor to the United States (US) Secretary for Defence, in matters concerning nuclear, chemical and biological defence programs, was quoted saying, “It gives them (Kazakhstan) a neutral, internal supply of low-enriched uranium for power reactors, so they don’t have to develop their own enrichment capacity that could be misused to produce the fuel for nuclear weapons. So, it takes that off the table and makes the world safer.”
In theory, the concept of nuclear fuel banks is a very good alternative to nations building their own nuclear enrichment facilities. Then again, we can only hope that the international community takes inspiration from the case study of Kazakhstan.
References:
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
One among the most common criticisms, raised against the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is the issue of nuclear fissile material. A facility that can produce low-enriched uranium, which can be used for generating nuclear power, can also produce high-enriched uranium, which is suitable for nuclear weapons. Hence, by allowing nations to enrich uranium for supposed peaceful purposes, we put ourselves at the risk of allowing nations to stockpile nuclear armaments. Hence, the creation of a world nuclear bank was proposed.
The agreement in 2009, between the United States of America (USA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), could serve as an example for such a bank. Based on this agreement, USA would supply UAE with low-enriched uranium, on the condition that the latter would never enrich, or reprocess, nuclear material. Such an agreement eliminated the possibility of UAE engaging in nuclear arms proliferation. The idea of establishing an international nuclear bank has been floating around in the international community for quite a while, albeit, without much popularity. Let us take a look as to why it should be a popular idea.
In a study conducted by the faculty of Stanford University, it was found out that the cost of constructing a facility, to enrich uranium, would cost around 250 million to 3.3 billion dollars. This is an extremely large amount of money, which has immense applications elsewhere. The cost may fluctuate based on factors such as geographical location, capacity, et cetera. Developing nations cannot invest such obscene amounts of money. These nations would face heavy economic constraints, or would have to resort to financial assistants from other nations, to make such investments. For countries newly pursuing nuclear power, the existence of an international fuel bank can improve the economic viability of nuclear power.
Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, a fair few nations have put their nuclear programs on hold. Many nations have faced dissenting opinions from their people on the use of nuclear energy. For example, the Republic of India faced heavy opposition from the locals when they decided to go ahead with the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) had also seen the outbreak of protests, over the construction of the Heshan Nuclear Power Industry Park. PRC went on to cancel the project, which was supposed to be state-funded. Governments that wish to continue in their pursuit of nuclear energy could seek assistance from a nuclear fuel bank. This could help in assuaging concerns over the safety of nuclear facilities.
Another argument in favor of the creation of a nuclear energy bank is that of nuclear security. An international energy bank can tackle the issues related to nuclear security, such as physical security. The nuclear fuel bank could help developing nations in ensuring that the enrichment facilities are secure, while allowing the potential customer nation to devote the entirety of their resources in keeping their nuclear power plants secure.
The final concern, that the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank addresses, is that of the loopholes in the current methodology for non-proliferation. As discussed earlier, by furnishing a potential customer nation with low-enriched uranium, the possibility of a nation attempting to produce high-enrich uranium is significantly lower. Even though the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank cannot comprehensively address all the qualms, that the various nations have towards the NPT, this can be a very good step in the right direction and these steps are indeed being taken.
In 27 August 2015, the IAEA and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up a low-enriched uranium fuel bank in Oskemen, Kazakhstan. Operations are expected to begin in 2017, and a physical reserve of low-enriched uranium is to be created. The bank will store up to 90 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, which would be sufficient to run a 1000 MWe light-water reactor. Andrew Weber, the then principal advisor to the United States (US) Secretary for Defence, in matters concerning nuclear, chemical and biological defence programs, was quoted saying, “It gives them (Kazakhstan) a neutral, internal supply of low-enriched uranium for power reactors, so they don’t have to develop their own enrichment capacity that could be misused to produce the fuel for nuclear weapons. So, it takes that off the table and makes the world safer.”
In theory, the concept of nuclear fuel banks is a very good alternative to nations building their own nuclear enrichment facilities. Then again, we can only hope that the international community takes inspiration from the case study of Kazakhstan.
References:
- http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-fuel-bank-good-investment#wt
- The Cost Structure of International Uranium Enrichment Service Supply (authors: Geoffrey Rothwell, Chaim Braun)
- http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-IAEA-and-Kazakhstan-agree-to-create-nuclear-fuel-bank-27081501.html
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Sharing is Caring
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), summarises a discussion on the role of information sharing in the context of nuclear disasters.
Having indulged in discussion regarding waste management and emergency response, the delegates felt best to move to debate on the role of information sharing in international assistance, with respect to disasters.
The delegates were mainly divided into two ‘blocs’, based on the ideas they presented to the committee. A major chunk of the committee believed that information sharing was the way to go. Most delegates seemed to also agree that there was a requirement for a unified or a centralised organisation, which could regulate the information that was being shared by the nations. Adding on to this, the Delegate of the Argentine Republic suggested the creation of a worldwide directory of reactor malfunctions. This seemed to tie into the ideas that were previously presented in the committee, which talked about learning from and amending the mistakes made in the past disasters. On the same note, the Delegate of the United States of America (USA) believed that the IAEA could do better in case of accidental data collection.
As is customary, the committee was not without dissent. A few delegates had different ideologies on this particular topic. The Delegate of the State of Israel was quick to voice his concerns on the sensitivity of the information being shared. The Delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agreed with the former delegate, and stated that information sharing was the nation’s prerogative. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran had identical views on the same.
However, the debate was not completely fruitful. The delegates had failed to address certain parameters. While discussing the requirement for an organisation to moderate the sharing of information, the delegates did not move to discuss the mandate of such an organisation. The entire discussion seemed shallow.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan)
Having indulged in discussion regarding waste management and emergency response, the delegates felt best to move to debate on the role of information sharing in international assistance, with respect to disasters.
The delegates were mainly divided into two ‘blocs’, based on the ideas they presented to the committee. A major chunk of the committee believed that information sharing was the way to go. Most delegates seemed to also agree that there was a requirement for a unified or a centralised organisation, which could regulate the information that was being shared by the nations. Adding on to this, the Delegate of the Argentine Republic suggested the creation of a worldwide directory of reactor malfunctions. This seemed to tie into the ideas that were previously presented in the committee, which talked about learning from and amending the mistakes made in the past disasters. On the same note, the Delegate of the United States of America (USA) believed that the IAEA could do better in case of accidental data collection.
As is customary, the committee was not without dissent. A few delegates had different ideologies on this particular topic. The Delegate of the State of Israel was quick to voice his concerns on the sensitivity of the information being shared. The Delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agreed with the former delegate, and stated that information sharing was the nation’s prerogative. The Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran had identical views on the same.
However, the debate was not completely fruitful. The delegates had failed to address certain parameters. While discussing the requirement for an organisation to moderate the sharing of information, the delegates did not move to discuss the mandate of such an organisation. The entire discussion seemed shallow.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan)
NSFL – Not Safe For Life
Ajeeth Rajesh, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reviews the IAEA safeguards and their implementation.
As the world cooled down, after the tensions of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the international community began to realise the gravity of the situation. Nuclear stockpiles had been steadily increasing. Many a nation invested in enrichment technologies. At the time, possessing nuclear weapons was a statement of pride and intent. It was at this point, that the international community decided that a framework was necessary to police the experiments in nuclear technology. That framework was the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the terms of this treaty, non-nuclear weapons states were required to sign a safeguards agreement with the NPT. These safeguards required the IAEA to ensure that all nuclear material for these states was only used for peaceful purposes.
As of 2013, the IAEA implements safeguards for 180 nations with nuclear material in approximately 1300 facilities. Naturally, the implementation of safeguards in these nations will give rise to issues. With global trade blossoming, and the borders eroding, the supply and demand for nuclear material is steadily expanding, and not all of this supply is, strictly speaking, legitimate. Concerns have been raised on the illicit trade of nuclear material between nations. As the trade is illicit, the safety procedures might not be followed either. Nuclear technology is much simpler to obtain. The Internet expedites the uncurbed spread of the technology required to use nuclear material. To put it simply - the IAEA safeguards may require a review to strengthen them. In the current geopolitical situation, the safeguards would require more complexity and comprehensiveness. Meanwhile, the principles of the IAEA have to remain the same. They cannot change, no matter what the circumstances. The IAEA’s work also requires concentration of resources. The prime issue, at hand, is that of nations such as the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Around twenty years ago, the Republic of Iraq demonstrated how a nation determined on proliferation could develop a nuclear weapons programme, regardless of the comprehensive safeguards agreement that were in place. This situation put the credibility of the IAEA safeguards in question. Consequentially, efforts were made to strengthen the safeguards. As a result, the Model Additional Protocol came into force. This protocol armed the IAEA with provisions for increased access to nuclear facilities and information regarding the same. Now, here’s the catch. The protocol is completely voluntary, and the states can choose to opt out of it at their whim. Without the additional protocol to aid the pre-existing framework, the IAEA cannot ensure that the nuclear programmes of all these states are purely for peaceful purposes. The political challenge here is to achieve universal adherence to this protocol.
On a brighter note, the advances in technological capabilities have proved to be a boon for the IAEA. They have been able to harness the newer technologies. Environmental sampling is one such technique. The Agency uses this process to isolate samples from a given facility, and to detect the level of enrichment of nuclear material at said facility. Satellite imagery is used, in conjunction with other technologies, and this allows the Agency to effectively verify the information provided by a particular regarding the nuclear facilities.
The other political challenges involve a group of rogue nations. The first example is DPRK. The issue with DPRK goes back to 1992. The Agency was unable to verify the authenticity of the country’s report on their nuclear material, with respect to safeguards. Subsequently, DPRK withdrew from the NPT, thereby, terminating its obligation to follow the IAEA safeguards. Since then, DPRK has conducted several nuclear tests underground. Agency inspectors were expelled from the nation in 2009. The Agency has been unable to comprehensively verify DPRK’s nuclear programme, and little can be done about it, unless their ‘Supreme Leader’ has a change of heart.
The Agency has also tried to engage with Iran regarding the nature of its nuclear programme. Since the change in government, Iran has adopted a policy of cooperation and transparency by signing a Framework on Cooperation with the Agency. This framework aims to resolves the issues that Iran has had with the Agency, in the past, that have continued to the present. Iran has agreed to provide the Agency with better information regarding all planned nuclear facilities in Iran. They have also granted access to the nuclear power plant in Arak. These measures are seen as a stepping-stone to better relations with Iran.
At the end of the day, it is to be remembered that the IAEA is not a police force. It is merely a recommendatory body that has the capacity to handle the technical aspects of this issue. The power of adopting, and enforcing, legislations lies with the United Nations Security Council. A serious commitment is required from its members in order to effectively take forward the idea of nuclear non-proliferation.
References:
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
As the world cooled down, after the tensions of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the international community began to realise the gravity of the situation. Nuclear stockpiles had been steadily increasing. Many a nation invested in enrichment technologies. At the time, possessing nuclear weapons was a statement of pride and intent. It was at this point, that the international community decided that a framework was necessary to police the experiments in nuclear technology. That framework was the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the terms of this treaty, non-nuclear weapons states were required to sign a safeguards agreement with the NPT. These safeguards required the IAEA to ensure that all nuclear material for these states was only used for peaceful purposes.
As of 2013, the IAEA implements safeguards for 180 nations with nuclear material in approximately 1300 facilities. Naturally, the implementation of safeguards in these nations will give rise to issues. With global trade blossoming, and the borders eroding, the supply and demand for nuclear material is steadily expanding, and not all of this supply is, strictly speaking, legitimate. Concerns have been raised on the illicit trade of nuclear material between nations. As the trade is illicit, the safety procedures might not be followed either. Nuclear technology is much simpler to obtain. The Internet expedites the uncurbed spread of the technology required to use nuclear material. To put it simply - the IAEA safeguards may require a review to strengthen them. In the current geopolitical situation, the safeguards would require more complexity and comprehensiveness. Meanwhile, the principles of the IAEA have to remain the same. They cannot change, no matter what the circumstances. The IAEA’s work also requires concentration of resources. The prime issue, at hand, is that of nations such as the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Around twenty years ago, the Republic of Iraq demonstrated how a nation determined on proliferation could develop a nuclear weapons programme, regardless of the comprehensive safeguards agreement that were in place. This situation put the credibility of the IAEA safeguards in question. Consequentially, efforts were made to strengthen the safeguards. As a result, the Model Additional Protocol came into force. This protocol armed the IAEA with provisions for increased access to nuclear facilities and information regarding the same. Now, here’s the catch. The protocol is completely voluntary, and the states can choose to opt out of it at their whim. Without the additional protocol to aid the pre-existing framework, the IAEA cannot ensure that the nuclear programmes of all these states are purely for peaceful purposes. The political challenge here is to achieve universal adherence to this protocol.
On a brighter note, the advances in technological capabilities have proved to be a boon for the IAEA. They have been able to harness the newer technologies. Environmental sampling is one such technique. The Agency uses this process to isolate samples from a given facility, and to detect the level of enrichment of nuclear material at said facility. Satellite imagery is used, in conjunction with other technologies, and this allows the Agency to effectively verify the information provided by a particular regarding the nuclear facilities.
The other political challenges involve a group of rogue nations. The first example is DPRK. The issue with DPRK goes back to 1992. The Agency was unable to verify the authenticity of the country’s report on their nuclear material, with respect to safeguards. Subsequently, DPRK withdrew from the NPT, thereby, terminating its obligation to follow the IAEA safeguards. Since then, DPRK has conducted several nuclear tests underground. Agency inspectors were expelled from the nation in 2009. The Agency has been unable to comprehensively verify DPRK’s nuclear programme, and little can be done about it, unless their ‘Supreme Leader’ has a change of heart.
The Agency has also tried to engage with Iran regarding the nature of its nuclear programme. Since the change in government, Iran has adopted a policy of cooperation and transparency by signing a Framework on Cooperation with the Agency. This framework aims to resolves the issues that Iran has had with the Agency, in the past, that have continued to the present. Iran has agreed to provide the Agency with better information regarding all planned nuclear facilities in Iran. They have also granted access to the nuclear power plant in Arak. These measures are seen as a stepping-stone to better relations with Iran.
At the end of the day, it is to be remembered that the IAEA is not a police force. It is merely a recommendatory body that has the capacity to handle the technical aspects of this issue. The power of adopting, and enforcing, legislations lies with the United Nations Security Council. A serious commitment is required from its members in order to effectively take forward the idea of nuclear non-proliferation.
References:
- https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/meeting-safeguards-challenges
- http://issues.org/24-3/ferguson-2/#respond
- http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/050/30050977.pdf
- https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/5722425.pdf
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Shelving the Toxicity
Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), follows the trail of debate surrounding nuclear waste management and disposal.
Nuclear energy is regarded to be the cleanest form of energy, as there is no direct emission of effluents like in the case of fossil fuel plants, which constantly release the by-products into the atmosphere. The problem arises in the matter of spent fuel. The committee, thereby, went on to discuss measures to rid the world of potentially dangerous radioactive waste.
Construction of repositories outside nuclear plants was suggested as a solution by the Delegate of the Kingdom of Sweden. The Delegate also believed that the operators of the plant should be trained to handle the disposal of waste. The Delegate of the Republic of Peru agreed to this, along with stating that regional repositories were not well-developed, owing to the heat of political issues.
A number of techniques were brought forward by the Delegates of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Argentina, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the State of Israel, and the Republic of India. The first technique discussed was rock-melting, where radioactive waste is melted into a rock; this solidifies and prevents further spreading of radiation from the waste. Another technique, direct injection, requires one to inject liquid waste into the adjacent rocks which, once again, curbs the infiltration of waste into the surroundings. The Delegate of Argentina suggested that the waste could be mixed with a matrix material such as cement, and the intermediate waste could be solidified with bitumen. The idea of a ventilation system for low-grade waste and intermediate waste was proposed by the Delegate of the Republic of India.
An isotope complex, as suggested by the Delegate of Azerbaijan, is a sorting box which operates under negative pressure. Furthermore, it houses a waste cementing plant. The Delegate of Malaysia put forward the idea of including a solid waste processing area, where waste would be segregated, and further treatment would be done accordingly. Coming to the type of reactors, the Delegate of Libya suggested the use of fast reactors combined with actinides, as it would help in significantly reducing the half-life of the radioactive waste.
The Delegate of the Democratic Republic of Congo pressed upon the need to understand the different kinds of wastes that come from a reactor. The example of the United States of America (USA) was brought into light; the nuclear waste is dumped in deep wells in the ocean beds. The Delegate of Guatemala felt that a futuristic solution was needed to solve the issue and, thus, called for the dumping of nuclear wastes in outer space.
The problems that arise in the waste management process were discussed by the Delegate of the United States of America (USA). The Delegate mentioned that not all countries have the required resources to handle radioactive waste, and that it did not help that there were different kinds of waste. In addition to this, the Delegate of the Republic of Pakistan proposed that waste should be handled on the basis of its severity. The Delegate of the Republic of Seychelles simply called for the discovery of a cleaner source of energy. On the other hand, the Delegate of the Kingdom of Denmark spoke on how there existed no permanent solution; permanent isolation of sorts could solve the problem.
The discussion led to the unification of ideas and techniques. A majority of the delegates seemed to accept the consequences that came with the usage of nuclear energy. It became clear that one should look for solutions, instead of letting go of the prospective of the cleanest energy that there is.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Nuclear energy is regarded to be the cleanest form of energy, as there is no direct emission of effluents like in the case of fossil fuel plants, which constantly release the by-products into the atmosphere. The problem arises in the matter of spent fuel. The committee, thereby, went on to discuss measures to rid the world of potentially dangerous radioactive waste.
Construction of repositories outside nuclear plants was suggested as a solution by the Delegate of the Kingdom of Sweden. The Delegate also believed that the operators of the plant should be trained to handle the disposal of waste. The Delegate of the Republic of Peru agreed to this, along with stating that regional repositories were not well-developed, owing to the heat of political issues.
A number of techniques were brought forward by the Delegates of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Argentina, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the State of Israel, and the Republic of India. The first technique discussed was rock-melting, where radioactive waste is melted into a rock; this solidifies and prevents further spreading of radiation from the waste. Another technique, direct injection, requires one to inject liquid waste into the adjacent rocks which, once again, curbs the infiltration of waste into the surroundings. The Delegate of Argentina suggested that the waste could be mixed with a matrix material such as cement, and the intermediate waste could be solidified with bitumen. The idea of a ventilation system for low-grade waste and intermediate waste was proposed by the Delegate of the Republic of India.
An isotope complex, as suggested by the Delegate of Azerbaijan, is a sorting box which operates under negative pressure. Furthermore, it houses a waste cementing plant. The Delegate of Malaysia put forward the idea of including a solid waste processing area, where waste would be segregated, and further treatment would be done accordingly. Coming to the type of reactors, the Delegate of Libya suggested the use of fast reactors combined with actinides, as it would help in significantly reducing the half-life of the radioactive waste.
The Delegate of the Democratic Republic of Congo pressed upon the need to understand the different kinds of wastes that come from a reactor. The example of the United States of America (USA) was brought into light; the nuclear waste is dumped in deep wells in the ocean beds. The Delegate of Guatemala felt that a futuristic solution was needed to solve the issue and, thus, called for the dumping of nuclear wastes in outer space.
The problems that arise in the waste management process were discussed by the Delegate of the United States of America (USA). The Delegate mentioned that not all countries have the required resources to handle radioactive waste, and that it did not help that there were different kinds of waste. In addition to this, the Delegate of the Republic of Pakistan proposed that waste should be handled on the basis of its severity. The Delegate of the Republic of Seychelles simply called for the discovery of a cleaner source of energy. On the other hand, the Delegate of the Kingdom of Denmark spoke on how there existed no permanent solution; permanent isolation of sorts could solve the problem.
The discussion led to the unification of ideas and techniques. A majority of the delegates seemed to accept the consequences that came with the usage of nuclear energy. It became clear that one should look for solutions, instead of letting go of the prospective of the cleanest energy that there is.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
The Chair’s Thoughts
Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), interviewed the Chairperson of the committee, Priya Subramanian.
What, according to you, are the pros of using nuclear energy? Seeing how there exist many equivalent cons, should the cons be shelved for the greater good?
Nuclear reactors produce more energy per unit than any other forms of conventional energy sources which are available to us right now. Further, it is a relatively cleaner form of energy, especially if a nation is equipped to handle the case of disposal: efficient, clean, and sustainable. The resources required are more easily obtained than, say, fossil fuel sources. This is the best technology that we have. We must never shelve aside the cons of any primary sources; we must address potential problems with regard to any form of energy. Especially this one as there is an issue of radioactivity. We must keep developing to keep using nuclear energy, and get the most out of it.
Do you think that IAEA can unify nations, seeing how the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) failed to do so?
I do believe that the IAEA can unify nations in a way that NPT could not. NPT seems to grant monopoly to certain nations. The IAEA, on the other hand, has brought nations together, and has made it possible for them to discuss the issues that we believe are paramount while dealing with nuclear energy and technology. The NPT does not discuss these issues in a manner that would be amenable to all countries. The IAEA gives a voice to all countries, and a platform to come out and speak up about the issues that pertain to them. Thus, they can come up with better solutions in conjunction with the rest of the world.
In the past, nuclear energy itself had a hushed atmosphere around it; things have changed a lot now. How do you feel about this: should confidentiality be maintained?
The kind of taboo, back then, was due to the fact that nuclear technology was associated with weaponry and wall, because of the direct correlation with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now that we have moved so far away from it, nuclear energy is associated with peaceful purposes like providing electricity. It is something that people can discuss; it is not out of the mind. We all are involved in this, like in the example of the Kudankulam power plant. This is important to the public; the government cannot keep the dangers or benefits of nuclear technology shrouded from the public. People are required to work there, people live around the reactor. This is not a matter of national security: it is about public safety as well. There is no hiding behind the veneer of national security when it comes to the lives of so many people. It is not problematic, I think, that we have evolved away from the previous scenario.
People argue that Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be measured with the same yard stick of morals that we have today. What are your thoughts on this?
While I do believe, on an academic level, that you cannot judge something from the past with the modes of today, but you cannot look at things in an isolated manner, and think that is acceptable since it was back in the past. You need to learn and grow from it. Harry Truman made a judgement call knowing that countless people would be killed, or left helpless in the face of such an attack. And yet, he went ahead with it. Perhaps, it seemed okay at that point in time. But, we now know that the fallout from that move has been devastating. We cannot say that Harry Truman had no other choice; Japan would have surrendered. He did not have to drop two bombs, because there probably was another way. We must learn from these mistakes and move forward.
How invasive do you feel that inspections of nuclear sites can be? What if they hinder the domestic functioning of the country?
What I believe is that countries already have a certain status quo when it comes to the IAEA inspectors. For example, India is only amenable to the IAEA inspectors entering civilian nuclear facilities because it is well known that we have a nuclear weapons program. A nation is as much a part of the organisation as any other country. The nations have agreed to the trade-off; the agency offers certain privileges and rights. It is vital that the IAEA inspectors be allowed to exercise their power to their fullest, and these powers ought to be extended. At the end of the day, the IAEA offers those countries numerous provisions that push for their development. Nations should, thus, extend the same courtesy to the IAEA and its inspectors.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
What, according to you, are the pros of using nuclear energy? Seeing how there exist many equivalent cons, should the cons be shelved for the greater good?
Nuclear reactors produce more energy per unit than any other forms of conventional energy sources which are available to us right now. Further, it is a relatively cleaner form of energy, especially if a nation is equipped to handle the case of disposal: efficient, clean, and sustainable. The resources required are more easily obtained than, say, fossil fuel sources. This is the best technology that we have. We must never shelve aside the cons of any primary sources; we must address potential problems with regard to any form of energy. Especially this one as there is an issue of radioactivity. We must keep developing to keep using nuclear energy, and get the most out of it.
Do you think that IAEA can unify nations, seeing how the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) failed to do so?
I do believe that the IAEA can unify nations in a way that NPT could not. NPT seems to grant monopoly to certain nations. The IAEA, on the other hand, has brought nations together, and has made it possible for them to discuss the issues that we believe are paramount while dealing with nuclear energy and technology. The NPT does not discuss these issues in a manner that would be amenable to all countries. The IAEA gives a voice to all countries, and a platform to come out and speak up about the issues that pertain to them. Thus, they can come up with better solutions in conjunction with the rest of the world.
In the past, nuclear energy itself had a hushed atmosphere around it; things have changed a lot now. How do you feel about this: should confidentiality be maintained?
The kind of taboo, back then, was due to the fact that nuclear technology was associated with weaponry and wall, because of the direct correlation with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now that we have moved so far away from it, nuclear energy is associated with peaceful purposes like providing electricity. It is something that people can discuss; it is not out of the mind. We all are involved in this, like in the example of the Kudankulam power plant. This is important to the public; the government cannot keep the dangers or benefits of nuclear technology shrouded from the public. People are required to work there, people live around the reactor. This is not a matter of national security: it is about public safety as well. There is no hiding behind the veneer of national security when it comes to the lives of so many people. It is not problematic, I think, that we have evolved away from the previous scenario.
People argue that Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be measured with the same yard stick of morals that we have today. What are your thoughts on this?
While I do believe, on an academic level, that you cannot judge something from the past with the modes of today, but you cannot look at things in an isolated manner, and think that is acceptable since it was back in the past. You need to learn and grow from it. Harry Truman made a judgement call knowing that countless people would be killed, or left helpless in the face of such an attack. And yet, he went ahead with it. Perhaps, it seemed okay at that point in time. But, we now know that the fallout from that move has been devastating. We cannot say that Harry Truman had no other choice; Japan would have surrendered. He did not have to drop two bombs, because there probably was another way. We must learn from these mistakes and move forward.
How invasive do you feel that inspections of nuclear sites can be? What if they hinder the domestic functioning of the country?
What I believe is that countries already have a certain status quo when it comes to the IAEA inspectors. For example, India is only amenable to the IAEA inspectors entering civilian nuclear facilities because it is well known that we have a nuclear weapons program. A nation is as much a part of the organisation as any other country. The nations have agreed to the trade-off; the agency offers certain privileges and rights. It is vital that the IAEA inspectors be allowed to exercise their power to their fullest, and these powers ought to be extended. At the end of the day, the IAEA offers those countries numerous provisions that push for their development. Nations should, thus, extend the same courtesy to the IAEA and its inspectors.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Fissile Thoughts
Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), conducted an opinion poll. The following is a brief report.
Q. Reprocessing of spent fuel is a chain of reactions used to extract Uranium from the waste (which constitutes Uranium and Plutonium). Should the focus be on “reprocessing”, when considering nuclear waste management?
(Yes/No/Abstain)
The strength of the committee was 35: 30 voted “yes”; two voted “no”; there were three abstentions. 85.7% of the committee agreed that recycling of fuel was the most important method to consider before disposal, regardless of the fact that Plutonium (used for weapons) can also extracted. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that the delegates have confidence that there would no case of a rogue nation.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Q. Reprocessing of spent fuel is a chain of reactions used to extract Uranium from the waste (which constitutes Uranium and Plutonium). Should the focus be on “reprocessing”, when considering nuclear waste management?
(Yes/No/Abstain)
The strength of the committee was 35: 30 voted “yes”; two voted “no”; there were three abstentions. 85.7% of the committee agreed that recycling of fuel was the most important method to consider before disposal, regardless of the fact that Plutonium (used for weapons) can also extracted. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that the delegates have confidence that there would no case of a rogue nation.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Sayonara!
Shruthi Subramanian steps into a pair of unfamiliar shoes (which takes her 26 years into the future), as she imagines herself narrating the tale of the Old Earth to her grandchildren.
Regardless of what anyone tells you, remember: the flat-earth theory is hokum. Of course, you cannot go over the edge, but that does not take away the curvature! Ours is a piece of paradise in a sealed dome. You have probably dreamt of going beyond it, but it is not like I remembered it. I remember when the sky was the colour of your feelings – actually, I do not want to get you excited; it was just blue with puffy white clouds. Yes, you heard me right! The clouds were white, and they did not burp out the next tar-covered horror story. All right, all right. I will try to keep the horror to a minimum. Kids, these days; I had a stronger stomach when I was your age.
I do not even remember how they came up with this dome. I do hope it is not held together by duck-tape. Rambling? Me? Where are your manners? Now, listen. It was an oddly brilliant amalgamation of land and water. But, the water felt like it was everywhere. Everything changed the day our land shook. Well, it was not the first time, but on that day – it was different. My mother told me about how her tea cups predicted the future: ripples that led to the end. I was not far from Daiichi; it was supposed to be an ordinary day. It lasted for what felt like an eternity: I had even accepted my fate. 6 minutes, the news report had said. Speak for yourself; I stand by how I felt.
The most terrifying moment was the unsettling calm before the wave approached. We had only started to pick up the pieces; the sky had only begun to give us hope. The land was engulfed by a large shadow. What goes up must come down, I guess. Water, truly, was everywhere. Two disasters. That should have been it. Then, came the fireworks: bright, new clouds of reckoning. It looked like someone had injected lightning into puffs of fire. The reactor failed in ways that we could not have been prepared for. No, we did not see any of it coming – another disaster. Ah, nature’s brand of divine discontent! If only that had been the end. People continued to flood my vision. We were all running away from the very elements we had once worshipped. In that moment, we experienced it all together. I saw no outcast. I saw suffering, loss, and well, misery. Had we made a mistake by surviving this? That fate was chosen for us.
Things changed every year. Some of us were more paranoid, while some were intrigued. We only dreamt bigger, and some of us crossed the line. Radiation is not the shiny light that guides you home. It made us all a little colder. The years went by, and it was not limited to Fukushima’s sky. The darkness hung over us like an old croon reminding us of our flaws. We had to leave for we could no longer breathe in the winter. Our overcoats did nothing for us.
So, we re-drew the lines on the globe, and sealed off the perimeter from the only true enemy: death, and maybe radioactive boars. We have, in a way, created our own summer in this tacky snow-globe. Those atoms continue to constitute us, but they no longer divide us. So, that is the moral, I think. We made it or, at least, I did. I survived – alone, mutated, and left all alone, talking to imaginary grandchildren.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Regardless of what anyone tells you, remember: the flat-earth theory is hokum. Of course, you cannot go over the edge, but that does not take away the curvature! Ours is a piece of paradise in a sealed dome. You have probably dreamt of going beyond it, but it is not like I remembered it. I remember when the sky was the colour of your feelings – actually, I do not want to get you excited; it was just blue with puffy white clouds. Yes, you heard me right! The clouds were white, and they did not burp out the next tar-covered horror story. All right, all right. I will try to keep the horror to a minimum. Kids, these days; I had a stronger stomach when I was your age.
I do not even remember how they came up with this dome. I do hope it is not held together by duck-tape. Rambling? Me? Where are your manners? Now, listen. It was an oddly brilliant amalgamation of land and water. But, the water felt like it was everywhere. Everything changed the day our land shook. Well, it was not the first time, but on that day – it was different. My mother told me about how her tea cups predicted the future: ripples that led to the end. I was not far from Daiichi; it was supposed to be an ordinary day. It lasted for what felt like an eternity: I had even accepted my fate. 6 minutes, the news report had said. Speak for yourself; I stand by how I felt.
The most terrifying moment was the unsettling calm before the wave approached. We had only started to pick up the pieces; the sky had only begun to give us hope. The land was engulfed by a large shadow. What goes up must come down, I guess. Water, truly, was everywhere. Two disasters. That should have been it. Then, came the fireworks: bright, new clouds of reckoning. It looked like someone had injected lightning into puffs of fire. The reactor failed in ways that we could not have been prepared for. No, we did not see any of it coming – another disaster. Ah, nature’s brand of divine discontent! If only that had been the end. People continued to flood my vision. We were all running away from the very elements we had once worshipped. In that moment, we experienced it all together. I saw no outcast. I saw suffering, loss, and well, misery. Had we made a mistake by surviving this? That fate was chosen for us.
Things changed every year. Some of us were more paranoid, while some were intrigued. We only dreamt bigger, and some of us crossed the line. Radiation is not the shiny light that guides you home. It made us all a little colder. The years went by, and it was not limited to Fukushima’s sky. The darkness hung over us like an old croon reminding us of our flaws. We had to leave for we could no longer breathe in the winter. Our overcoats did nothing for us.
So, we re-drew the lines on the globe, and sealed off the perimeter from the only true enemy: death, and maybe radioactive boars. We have, in a way, created our own summer in this tacky snow-globe. Those atoms continue to constitute us, but they no longer divide us. So, that is the moral, I think. We made it or, at least, I did. I survived – alone, mutated, and left all alone, talking to imaginary grandchildren.
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Why the World Needs Superman
As an ode to Lois Lane, Shruthi Subramanian, reporting from International Atomic Agency (IAEA), writes on the incapability of human beings in the context of nuclear energy.
Power concentrated in one source has been humankind’s enemy since time immemorial. The possibility of someone taking the wheel for the whole world is disturbing, and it makes the ordinary folk insecure and exposed as the flawed vessels that they are. From the division of land to the division of neutrons, the fight for all that power drove the cause.
Nuclear energy is the most advanced form of energy: clean, efficient, and sustainable. Unlocking its greatest potential could keep the world running, perhaps, forever (wherever that ends). This was not always the theme that came to mind when thinking about nuclear energy. In the age of Project Manhattan, nuclear energy meant destruction of enormous proportions. There were hushed talks about the terrifying new weapons; national security was the reason cited mostly because the world was at war most of the time. As hushed as they were, the Soviets managed to salvage intelligence, and make their own. The borders have grown thicker since. Global peace, even today, remains a far away dream. In every scenario, human error stands out to be the clear problem.
The Chernobyl Disaster of 1986 was assessed in two reports. The first report emphasised on the role of the operators of the reactor, although this was deemed a flawed report. The second report found the design of the reactor faulty. [1] The official advisory group of the IAEA found proof for the claim that the operators had failed to avert the disaster. The evidence outlined the experience of the operators and the lack of knowledge when it came to nuclear science. The deficient “safety culture” was apparent even in the construction of the facility; the facility which was designed by – humans. The next major accident to discuss would be the Three-Mile Island incident. The mechanism required to send a signal of closure of the valve was absent; the operators mistook the procedure.[2] The operators had the cooling systems up and running as a response and, yet, failed to mitigate the consequences. The radioactive effluents were quick to blend with the air.
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has conducted extensive studies to tabulate the possibility of human errors. [3] It takes into consideration the nature of failure, intricate details of the occurrence, and the mental capacity of the operator. The mental capacity, as an umbrella term, covers the following parameters – realising the mishap, diagnosing the problem, and responding with corrective actions.
Human incapabilities do not end with the design or failure to respond; it extends to the incapacity of dealing with uncertainties. Act of God or not, there is no prayer to subdue nature’s brand of twisted, yet rightful, justice. The failure of the Dai-ichi reactor in Fukushima is one such incident. The earthquake lasted for six minutes, with a magnitude of 9.0, which further orchestrated a wave to hit back on the shore (in about an hour) [4], and cause the reactor to fail. The whole event transpired in less than two hours. Emergency protocols, evacuation procedures, and relief can only go so far. What really is the correct buffer time required to prepare humans in order to avert a disaster (or two)?
The writer believes that a superhuman could beat the odds, and match-up with the uncertainty that comes with the power of nuclear technology. Human beings have a long way to go, with a lot more to understand and experience. The wisdom of one could tear down walls, or even build them. Human fragility can be just as explosive as a fission reaction. The shining example of Vasilli Archipov[5] comes to mind, who, as a flotilla-rank commander single-handedly refused to launch a nuclear missile. He did so, regardless of the pressure of his bureaucratic senior officers, along with the pressure from being locked in a tightly sealed underwater vessel. This man stopped a nuclear war during Cuban Missile Crisis. The lessons to take away are numerous; mostly, it gives us hope. In the end all we need is hope.
Sources:
[1] http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/
[2]http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx
[3]https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-02.html
[4]http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_jpnnppaccident.cfm
[5]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
Power concentrated in one source has been humankind’s enemy since time immemorial. The possibility of someone taking the wheel for the whole world is disturbing, and it makes the ordinary folk insecure and exposed as the flawed vessels that they are. From the division of land to the division of neutrons, the fight for all that power drove the cause.
Nuclear energy is the most advanced form of energy: clean, efficient, and sustainable. Unlocking its greatest potential could keep the world running, perhaps, forever (wherever that ends). This was not always the theme that came to mind when thinking about nuclear energy. In the age of Project Manhattan, nuclear energy meant destruction of enormous proportions. There were hushed talks about the terrifying new weapons; national security was the reason cited mostly because the world was at war most of the time. As hushed as they were, the Soviets managed to salvage intelligence, and make their own. The borders have grown thicker since. Global peace, even today, remains a far away dream. In every scenario, human error stands out to be the clear problem.
The Chernobyl Disaster of 1986 was assessed in two reports. The first report emphasised on the role of the operators of the reactor, although this was deemed a flawed report. The second report found the design of the reactor faulty. [1] The official advisory group of the IAEA found proof for the claim that the operators had failed to avert the disaster. The evidence outlined the experience of the operators and the lack of knowledge when it came to nuclear science. The deficient “safety culture” was apparent even in the construction of the facility; the facility which was designed by – humans. The next major accident to discuss would be the Three-Mile Island incident. The mechanism required to send a signal of closure of the valve was absent; the operators mistook the procedure.[2] The operators had the cooling systems up and running as a response and, yet, failed to mitigate the consequences. The radioactive effluents were quick to blend with the air.
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has conducted extensive studies to tabulate the possibility of human errors. [3] It takes into consideration the nature of failure, intricate details of the occurrence, and the mental capacity of the operator. The mental capacity, as an umbrella term, covers the following parameters – realising the mishap, diagnosing the problem, and responding with corrective actions.
Human incapabilities do not end with the design or failure to respond; it extends to the incapacity of dealing with uncertainties. Act of God or not, there is no prayer to subdue nature’s brand of twisted, yet rightful, justice. The failure of the Dai-ichi reactor in Fukushima is one such incident. The earthquake lasted for six minutes, with a magnitude of 9.0, which further orchestrated a wave to hit back on the shore (in about an hour) [4], and cause the reactor to fail. The whole event transpired in less than two hours. Emergency protocols, evacuation procedures, and relief can only go so far. What really is the correct buffer time required to prepare humans in order to avert a disaster (or two)?
The writer believes that a superhuman could beat the odds, and match-up with the uncertainty that comes with the power of nuclear technology. Human beings have a long way to go, with a lot more to understand and experience. The wisdom of one could tear down walls, or even build them. Human fragility can be just as explosive as a fission reaction. The shining example of Vasilli Archipov[5] comes to mind, who, as a flotilla-rank commander single-handedly refused to launch a nuclear missile. He did so, regardless of the pressure of his bureaucratic senior officers, along with the pressure from being locked in a tightly sealed underwater vessel. This man stopped a nuclear war during Cuban Missile Crisis. The lessons to take away are numerous; mostly, it gives us hope. In the end all we need is hope.
Sources:
[1] http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/
[2]http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx
[3]https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-02.html
[4]http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_jpnnppaccident.cfm
[5]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)