iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

U.N. Chief Ban Ki-moon: More Nuclear Disasters Are Likely

Ban Kimoon Nuclear Disasters

By JIM HEINTZ   04/20/11 04:35 PM ET   AP

KIEV, Ukraine -- The world must prepare for more nuclear accidents on the scale of Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, the U.N. chief warned Wednesday, saying that grim reality will demand sharp improvements in international cooperation,

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and others portrayed the growth of nuclear power plants as inevitable in an energy-hungry world as they spoke at a Kiev conference commemorating the explosion of a reactor at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear reactor 25 years ago.

"To many, nuclear energy looks to be a relatively clean and logical choice in an era of increasing resource scarcity. Yet the record requires us to ask painful questions: have we correctly calculated its risks and costs? Are we doing all we can to keep the world's people safe?" Ban said. "The unfortunate truth is that we are likely to see more such disasters."

During a brief visit to the explosion site 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of the Ukrainian capital earlier in the day, Ban proposed a strategy for improving nuclear energy security worldwide, including strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency and devoting more attention to "the new nexus between natural disasters and nuclear safety."

The ongoing crisis at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was triggered by last month's huge earthquake and the ensuing tsunami that flooded the plant.

"Climate change means more incidents of freak weather," Ban said in Kiev. "Our vulnerability will only grow."

IAEA head Yukiya Amano, who accompanied Ban on the trip to Chernobyl, echoed those sentiments.

"Many countries will continue to find nuclear power an important option in the future, and that is why we have to do our utmost to ensure safety," he said, speaking a few hundred yards (meters) from the exploded reactor, which is now covered by a hastily erected sarcophagus.

The sarcophagus has gone past its expected service life and work has begun to build an enormous shelter that will be rolled over the reactor building. The new shelter, designed to last 100 years, is expected to be in place by 2015, but a substantial amount of money for the project is still lacking.

An international donors conference Tuesday in Kiev sought to raise euro740 million ($1.1 billion) for the shelter and a storage facility for the spent fuel at the plant's other decommissioned reactors. But in the face of global economic problems, some countries held back from making funding promises and the pledges only came to euro550 million ($798 million).

The Chernobyl explosion on April 26, 1986, spewed a cloud of radioactive fallout over much of Europe and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes in the most heavily hit areas. A 30-kilometer (19-mile) area radiating from the plant remains uninhabited except for some plant workers who rotate in and several hundred local people who returned to their homes despite official warnings.

Zsuzsanna Jacab of the U.N.'s World Health Organization told the Kiev conference that some 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed among people who were children and teens when exposed to the fallout. She said more cases are expected although "the magnitude is difficult to quantify."

Among the 600,000 people most heavily exposed to radiation – which apparently include the estimated 240,000 who worked on the first and most dangerous phase of the plant repair and clean-up – Jacab expects 4,000 more cancer deaths than average to be eventually found.

The U.N. figures have been criticized by the environmental group Greenpeace and others as severely understating Chernobyl's consequences. Even the lower figures represent "an unacceptable price paid by the affected communities," Jacab said.

Ban and others said the Chernobyl and Japan accidents highlighted the need for improved communication between countries about their nuclear programs. And Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, drew a political lesson from the crises.

"The more complex technologies become, the more complex societies become, the more important it is to involve civil societies, to have democratic institutions, a free press," he said.

Soviet authorities kept the Chernobyl disaster unreported for several days, and Japanese authorities have been criticized for initially providing insufficient information.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

KIEV, Ukraine -- The world must prepare for more nuclear accidents on the scale of Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, the U.N. chief warned Wednesday, saying that grim reality will demand...
KIEV, Ukraine -- The world must prepare for more nuclear accidents on the scale of Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, the U.N. chief warned Wednesday, saying that grim reality will demand...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 46
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:35 PM on 05/05/2011
He overestimates the number of cancer deaths by at least a factor of 3

Even if 600,000 worked in a radiation-free environment, 150,000 will die from cancer (25% from CDC) just for living on the planet

Even if the 240,000 most affected by radiation, took all precautions 60,000 would die from cancer (25% from CDC) just for living on the planet.

ICRP 60 and 103 has a range of increased risk/Sv values, the most conservative is 5x10-2/Sv

By his estimation, 4,000 peple that die from cancer represents 0.0067 increase cancer risk from the 600,000. We can back out from his data 5*10^-2/Sv * X = 0.0067, then the radiation dose associated with this excess cancer risk is 0.0067/5x10^-2, or 0.133 Sv or 13 rem.

It is not likely that 600,000 were exposed to 13 rem. A conservative estimate may be that on average, during the cleanup, 600,000 (good law of large numbers value) were exposed to 5 rem, which is the international limit. Most were probably never near this limit.

So the expected number of cancer deaths over the 150,000 normally expected would be 0.05 Sv*5x10-2/Sv*600,000 = 1500 or roughly 1% over the expected value, which is not significant.

This assumes a Linear No Threshold model.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:17 PM on 05/05/2011
Here is the scenario at hand:

1. Carbon and greenhouse gasses warm the planet
2. Warming the planet melts polar ice caps
3. Oceans desalinate causing changes in currents
4. Changes in currents cause shift in weather patterns
5. Weather patterns cause natural disasters
6. Natural disasters place nuclear plants at risk

The problem is reversible:

Less natural disasters will occur if

Weather stabilizes
Currents in ocean stabilize
Ocean salinity return to normal
polar ice caps dont melt
Warming of planet declines
Greenhouse emissions decline
Latest generation nuclear power replaces carbon emitters

Thus more deployment of nuclear will inevitably lead to less likely natural disasters caused by severe climate change that can ultimately place nuclear at risk.

So in the end, more reliance on nuclear will actually make nuclear less likely to be impacted by drastic natural disasters caused in part by shying away from nuclear.

Its a cycle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kringle
Resurrection of the Gifting Spirit
07:57 AM on 04/25/2011
Why are we supposed to trust the corrupt bureaucrats who permitted us to be put into this mess?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bruce Pere
The goal of The New Herald News, is to provide new
09:29 PM on 04/23/2011
These are great people, we havent heard a word about looing. There is much to be learned. They dont want any Help, There is much to be learned. www.NewHeraldNews.com Bruce Applegate.
photo
CharlesBivona
Poetic Writer, Professor Activist
02:21 PM on 04/23/2011
I read this article at my desk, approximately 30 miles from Indian Point: the nuclear plant many consider the most seismically vulnerable in the United States. Needless to say, I'd prefer to live in close proximity to a wind farm or an array of highly sophisticated solar panels, but I wonder if that would provide enough energy to keep NYC shining all night long, or the HD in our TVs crisp and vibrant, or the video game systems as exciting and fun! I mean, honestly, isn't it our bad energy habits that inspires Ban Ki-moon to proclaim that the growth of nuclear power is inevitable? Just a question.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:38 PM on 05/05/2011
Here is a google search for killed by windmill. Amazing

http://www.google.com/search?q=killed+by+windmill&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=
12:58 PM on 04/23/2011
By linking more Japanese style nuclear disasters to global warming, Ki-moon is only adding to the AGW skeptics fodder. There is absolutely no link between earthquakes and global climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
Greed is not Patriotism
01:35 AM on 04/26/2011
There is absolutely no link between earthquake­s and global climate change.
 
The geologic record clearly shows that whenever the oceans rise, there is a concurrent subsidence in the land masses.  We saw this subsidence on the Japanese island of Honshu as a result of the recent quake.  We also see the ocean rising steadily.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Egalitare
03:29 PM on 04/22/2011
As long as maximizing profit is the primary goal, some cost cutting measure - no matter how seemingly remote from the core operation of the system - is going to result in an accident. Nuclear Power can only be managed to minimize the inevitable failures of design and operation, never made sufficiently safe (and yes, that includes Thorium reactors), and it will NEVER be cost competitive with any other means of power generation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
03:04 PM on 04/22/2011
Dr. Helen Caldicott's input about the health effects on humanity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ&feature=youtu.be
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
12:16 PM on 04/22/2011
empty hollow words
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fiberoptimist
07:45 PM on 04/21/2011
So what is he saying exactly? Millions may die, the earth may be uninhabitable, air, food and water will be poisoned but that's life? Tough luck? How can we put up with this insanity for even one more second?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ABACADABRA RABBIT
07:35 PM on 04/21/2011
Nuclear Power Sucks.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
06:48 PM on 04/21/2011
Thank god the UN it there to help! If it wasn't for people like Ban and company the world would have to realize on its own that there are reprocussions to our actions and events that we just can't comprehend. Maybe they can set up a group to study/monitor stuff like this?
04:35 PM on 04/21/2011
Wow - how nice. Nuclear is disastrous but we must build more. Another flak for the nuclear industry.
02:34 PM on 04/21/2011
More disasters likely ! ! ! ! ! ! Why Nuclear power ? ? ? ? ? ?

Wind, solar, geothermal, wave energy, hydro and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.

The NUCLEAR disaster in Japan is poisoning the air, water and food. The cost is too high.

The Gulf OIL disaster polluted the Gulf and who knows what damage to the wildlife and food supply.

The Massey COAL mine killed the workers... ...

Nuclear, oil and coal all have huge problems and are increasing in price.
Who knows what the final cost of the disaster in Japan will be. The price of wind and solar keeps dropping every year and is now very competitive.

Wind and solar are a good choice for the future. Safe, clean alternative energy without the risk that nuclear has to poison our air, water, land and food.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
Greed is not Patriotism
01:38 AM on 04/26/2011
Long time fan.  Add fusion technology to your list, it's just around the corner, cheaper and faster than building one conventional fission reactor ;)
 
http://www.emc2fusion.org

Lab ^ website - The front page shows the timeline and cost estimate.
 
02:23 PM on 04/21/2011
Yes, if they are stupid enough to build reactors right next to the ocean in an earthquake zone.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:27 AM on 04/22/2011
If they are stupid enough to build reactors.