Fukushima and the Future of Safe
Energy in the United States
David Richardson, PhD
Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH
Occupational risks
Photo: REUTERS
Medical staff arrive at Fukushima Medical
University Hospital to treat radiation exposed
workers from Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant,
Fukushima City, Japan, March 24, 2011.
Photograph: Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency/AP
Plant workers collect data in the control room for
Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Environmental releases
Photograph: Reuters. Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are continuing the
efforts to make the stricken No 3 reactor safe.
Environmental releases
Photograph: EPA. Wednesday 23 March: A farmer looks on as radioactive milk is poured into the soil
at a dairy farm in Mito town, Ibaraki prefecture

Variation over the life span in
susceptibility to an exposure’s effect
Ionizing Radiation and Chilldhood Cancer:
Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer
Maternal
Irradiation
During
Pregnancy
Leukemia
Other Malignant Disease
Case/Contr
ol
RR (95%CI)
Case/Contr
ol
RR (95%CI)
None
202/222
referent
202/225
referent
Other
25/23
1.19 (0.65,
2.16)
33/32
1.15 (0.68,1.94)
Abdomen
42/24
1.92 (1.12,
3.28)
43/21
2.28 (1.31,
3.97)
Stewart, 1956

Variation over the life span in
susceptibility to an exposure’s effect
Ratio of Observed to Expected Deaths
Lifetime Cumulative Dose
Ratio of Observed to Expected Deaths
Cumulative Dose >=45 yrs
Adjusted for Dose < 45 yrs
Alternative Descriptions of Age-at-Exposure Effects on Solid
Cancer Incidence, Life Span Study, 1958-1998
Preston et al., Radiation Research, 168:1-64, 2007
Source: US Department of Energy, 1996
Nuclear Power Plants in the US
104 operating
nuclear power plants
and 36 non-power
reactors in the US
11 operating plants
in Northern Illinois
Produce 19% of the
nation’s energy
Nuclear plant safety-Could it happen
here?
Core protected by containment dome
Coolant supply critical and must be
maintained after chain reaction
shutdown (20,000-500,000 g/m)
Spent fuel pools vulnerable
Spent Fuel Storage
After 12-24 months in
the reactor, fuel is
offloaded into cooling
ponds
Must remain until cool
More than 10x the
radioactive material
than the core (20-50
million curies Cs-137)
-Chernobyl released 2
million curies
Accident/Attack at Braidwood
PWR producing 2500 MW at full power
50+ mi SW of Chicago
Two scenarios:
Reactor vessel breach
Spent fuel pond fire
Analysis Tools
HPAC- Hazard Prediction and
Assessment Capability from the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency
CATS- Consequences Assessment Tool
Set from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Braidwood Scenario 1
Catastrophic coolant failure
Core exposed causing fire and breach
4% of core/hr burned
Summer Day
Normal Temperatures
Broken Clouds
Braidwood Total Effective Dose Equivalent
Joliet
South Bend
Fort Wayne
Braidwood Evacuation Area
Grand Rapids
Medical Consequences
The number of acutely ill people would
overwhelm all available care facilities
Many facilities will not be available due to
contamination:
113 hospitals would fall within the occupational
exposure zone (including two VA hospitals)
affecting more than 32,000 potential beds.
Nearly 20,000 physicians in five counties would
receive greater than occupational maximums for
radiation exposure from the plume itself, let alone
that from contaminated patients.
Medical Consequences
First responders, like firefighters would also be badly
affected. The 25 firefighters of Essex Fire Department
would possibly receive lethal doses, and the 67
firefighters of Braidwood and Herscher departments
would be suffering from radiation sickness.
Another 10,500 firefighters in 355 other departments
would have exceeded occupational exposures from
the plume itself and would be unavailable to respond
within the highly contaminated area. Police
departments would also be hard hit in Essex,
Braidwood and Herscher with the 38 police officers
receiving potentially lethal doses of radiation.
Indian Point Comparison
3,500-44,000 immediate deaths
100,000-500,000 long term deaths due
to cancer
Economic damages within 100 mi range
from $1.1-2.1 trillion
Carbon and Nuclear Free Future
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
12 Recommendations
Enact a physical limit of CO2
emissions for large users of
fossil fuels
Eliminate all subsidies / tax
breaks for fossil fuels
/nuclear power
Eliminate subsidies for
biofuels from food crops
Build demo plants
Enact at the federal level
high efficiency standards
Enact stringent building
efficiency standards
Enact stringent efficiency
standards for vehicles
Reward early adopters of
CO2 reductions
Leverage federal, state and
local purchasing power
Adopt vigorous research,
development, and pilot plant
construction
Ban new coal-fired power
plants w/o CCS
Establish a standing comm.
on Energy and Climate
For More Information
R. Alvarez et al., “Reducing the
Hazards from Stored Spent PowerReactor Fuel in the United States,”
Science and Global Security 11
(2003): 1-51.
Visit PSR’s website at:
D. Hirsch, “The NRC: What, me
worry?,” Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists 58(1): 38-44.
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 1012
Washington, DC, 20009
Telephone: (202) 667-4260
Fax: (202) 667-4201
E. Lyman, “Chernobyl on the
Hudson?,” Union of Concerned
Scientists, September 2004: 1-54.
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
COmNdgHr628
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/sum
mary.pdf
http://www.psr.org
or contact PSR at: