Environmental impact of nuclear power
[2] There is a catastrophic risk potential if containment fails,[3] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment.
Finally, some parts the structure of the reactor itself becomes radioactive through neutron activation and will require decades of storage before it can be economically dismantled and in turn disposed of as waste.
[12] The International Panel on Fissile Materials has said: It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for long periods of time, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment.
[15] Despite long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible, and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical.
This consensus-seeking approach is believed to have a greater chance of success than top-down modes of decision making, but the process is necessarily slow, and there is "inadequate experience around the world to know if it will succeed in all existing and aspiring nuclear nations.
"[21] Pressurized heavy water reactors like the Canadian CANDU or the Indian IPHWR do not need enriched fuel and can operate using natural uranium.
[24] Most commercial nuclear power plants release gaseous and liquid radiological effluents into the environment as a byproduct of the Chemical Volume Control System.
The walls of containment buildings are several feet thick and made of concrete designed to stop the release of any radiation emitted by the reactor into the environment.
Hundreds of abandoned mines, primarily used for the US arms race and not nuclear energy production, have not been cleaned up and present environmental and health risks in many communities.
[44] There is also agreement that some workers in other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle (most notably uranium mining) have had elevated rates of cancer, at least in past decades.
[51][52] Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study by Kaatsch et al. that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany.
[54][55][56][57][58] The British Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment issued a study in 2011 of children under five living near 13 nuclear power plants in the UK during the period 1969–2004.
[59] However, in view of the ongoing controversy, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested the National Academy of Sciences to oversee a state-of-the-art study of cancer risk in populations near NRC-licensed facilities.
[47] A subculture of frequently undocumented[clarification needed] nuclear workers do the dirty, difficult, and potentially dangerous work often shunned by regular employees.
Already more lives might have been lost just in Germany because of air pollution from coal power than from all of the world’s nuclear accidents to date, Fukushima and Chernobyl included.
[89] During Europe's 2003 and 2006 heat waves, French, Spanish, and German utilities had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment.
[100] The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 Chernobyl disaster, along with high construction costs and delays resulting from demonstrations, injunctions, and political actions by anti-nuclear activists, effectively ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity.
[3] A release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which damaged the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in hydrogen gas explosions and partial meltdowns.
[102] In March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused damage that led to explosions and partial meltdowns at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.
[108] New Scientist reported that emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium from the crippled Fukushima I nuclear plant have approached levels evident after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
[109] On March 24, 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures."
[111] The Economist reported that the Fukushima disaster is "a bit like three Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in the spent-fuel stores,"[113] and that there will be ongoing impacts: Years of clean-up will drag into decades.
Some of the areas in the temporary 12 miles (19 km) radius evacuation zone around Fukushima were found to be heavily contaminated with radionuclides, according to a survey released by the Japanese Ministry of Science and Education.
[citation needed] As of 2016, the government expects to gradually lift the designation of some “difficult-to-return zones,” a total area of 337 square kilometres (130 sq mi), by 2021.
The accident necessitated the evacuation of the entire city of Pripyat and of 300,000 people from Kiev, rendering an area of land unusable by humans for an indeterminate period.
[126] Many species of animals have experienced population increases since human influence has largely left the region, including moose, bison, and wolves.
According to a 2004 report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, "The human, environmental, and economic costs from a successful attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the release of substantial quantities of radioactive material to the environment could be great.
[139] Researchers have emphasized the need to make nuclear facilities extremely safe from sabotage and attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity.
Genpatsu-shinsai, meaning nuclear power plant earthquake disaster, is a term coined by Japanese seismologist Professor Katsuhiko Ishibashi in 1997.
[146][148] As of 2022[update] debate continues in many countries about how long their nuclear plants should run for, with some being shut-down earlier than expected when they were built and others having their lifetimes extended by decades.
