Archived GAC Evening Events

An update for the 2006 World Health Organization (WHO) report "Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes," this article looks at the effects 30 years after the Chernobyl accident. It includes updated assessments of the health effects of the accident, the UN Action Plan and the ICRIN project, the food safety in the affected areas, and provides an outline of the role WHO has played since the accident.

This portion of the World Health Organization's website focuses on answering common questions about the nuclear accident in Fukushima five years after its occurrence. Answers questions such as "what happened," "what levels of radiation have people been exposed to," "what are the health implications," and more.

This 2013 article published in the journal "Environmental Science & Technology" (ES&T) examines the benefits and risk of nuclear power. While mindful of, and framed by, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, the authors note that global nuclear power "has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning." They argue that "large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power."

Published in the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," this article looks at DNA damage and mutations in mice that have been exposed to low dose-rate radiation in order to "reveal potential geotoxic effects associated with low dose-rate radiation." They conclude that lowering the dose-rate "suppresses the potentially deleterious impact of radiation and calls attention to the need for a deeper understanding of the biological impact of low dose-rate radiation."

Published in a 2016 volume of "Energy Policy," this article looks at "historical reactor-specific overnight construction cost (OCC) data that broaden the scope of study substantially, covering the full cost history for 349 reactors in the US, France, Canada, West Germany, Japan, India, and South Korea, encompassing 58% of all reactors built globally. We find that trends in costs have varied significantly in magnitude and in structure by era, country, and experience. In contrast to the rapid cost escalation that characterized nuclear construction in the United States, we find evidence of much milder cost escalation in many countries, including absolute cost declines in some countries and specific eras. Our new findings suggest that there is no inherent cost escalation trend associated with nuclear technology."

This New York Times op-ed looks at a letter published by four climate scientists who are "pressing the case for environmental groups to embrace the need for a new generation of nuclear power plants." Article provides link to a rebuttal published by three Japanese researchers and Japan's former lead climate-treaty negotiator.

Joe Lassiter is a deep thinker and straight talker focused on developing clean, secure and carbon-neutral supplies of reliable, low-cost energy. His analysis of the world's energy realities puts a powerful lens on the stubbornly touchy issue of nuclear power, including new designs for plants that can compete economically with fossil fuels. We have the potential to make nuclear safer and cheaper than it's been in the past, Lassiter says. Now we have to make the choice to pursue it.

How will we power the planet without wrecking the climate?

Five years after the earthquake and tsunami that triggered the unprecedented trio of meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, scientists and engineers are struggling to control an ongoing crisis. What’s next for Fukushima?
What’s next for Japan? And what’s next for a world that seems determined to jettison one of our most important carbon-free sources of energy? Despite the catastrophe—and the ongoing risks associated with nuclear—a new generation of nuclear power seems poised to emerge the ashes of Fukushima. NOVA investigates how the realities of climate change, the inherent limitations of renewable energy sources, and the optimism and enthusiasm of a new generation of nuclear engineers is looking for ways to reinvent nuclear technology, all while the most recent disaster is still being managed. What are the lessons learned from Fukushima? And with all of nuclear’s inherent dangers, how might it be possible to build a safe nuclear future?

On 11 March 2011, Japan was struck by one of the most destructive nuclear accidents in history. A devastating earthquake and resulting tsunami hit the Tohoku area, triggering a reactor meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. More than five years on, scientists and engineers are still struggling to control the ongoing crisis, and determine whether there is the possibility of a safe nuclear future.

This investigative programme examines the new wave of support for nuclear energy among a scientific community confronting the realities of climate change and the inherent limitations of renewable energy. But with the fallout from Fukushima still being managed today, what lessons have been learned? Can this new generation of engineers successfully re-invent nuclear technology? Is there still hope for the nuclear option?

President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, signed an executive order revoking several key pieces of environmental protection legislation signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Josh Robin filed the following report.

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz tells Fareed why he finds the Trump administration's "anti-scientific" statements on climate change "disturbing."Source: CNN