Scientists have changed the statistical risk assessment for future events like Chernobyl and Fukushima

I. Number of nuclear reactors in operation. Ii. The frequency of incidents by year with a sliding value and Poisson regression in 1970-1986 and 1987-2014. Iii. Moving value separately for 1970-1986 and 1987-2014.

Nuclear power specialists claim that the latest generation of nuclear reactors are safer than ever. They are absolutely right. After the Chernobyl accident (1986), extraordinary security measures were taken all over the world. Risks significantly and dramatically reduced. Now accidents of this magnitude will happen infrequently. The question is how infrequent?

A group of mathematicians from the University of Sussex (Great Britain) and the Swiss Higher Technical School of Zurich carried out a statistical analysis of 216 accidents and incidents registered in the entire history of nuclear energy. The analysis showed that accidents did become much more rare. However, based on the available data, there is reason to believe that accidents like Fukushima or larger will occur every 60-150 years with a probability of 50% .

“Fully eliminating the risk of nuclear accidents on the scale of Fukushima will probably require huge changes in the current fleet of reactors, which are mainly second-generation reactors,” says Dr. Spencer Wheatley, lead author of the research.

Scientists explain that a more optimistic risk assessment in the past is associated with frequent instances of silencing information about incidents at nuclear power plants. Operators of such stations tend to conceal information about incidents. The authors of the study made up a more complete database of Nuclear events database . It contains three times more incidents than is contained in the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and twice as many as in the most comprehensive study on this topic.

Scientists suggest that incomplete information is related to the dual function of the IAEA, which is engaged in the preparation of reports on incidents. This organization should simultaneously regulate and promote the industry, which contributes to concealing information in some cases.

The authors of the scientific work have compiled a table indicating the damage from each accident, taking into account such factors as the destruction of property, the cost of rescue operations, environmental remediation, evacuation, fines and insurance claims. The death of each person adds $ 6 million to the total damage. In this case, the amount is taken as the standard damage from one dead person, as estimated by the US government. Obviously, in other countries the “cost of living” will be lower, but in the study such an estimate was used regardless of the age and nationality of a person (that is, without taking into account GDP per capita).


I. The frequency of incidents at nuclear power plants with damage of more than $ 20 million. II. Score in points on the international scale of nuclear events (INES). Iii. The INES scatter chart with damage (black) and the INES scale with alternative NAMS scale (gray) The

analysis showed that Fukushima and Chernobyl caused a total of damage of $ 425 billion - five times more than all the other accidents combined .

1. 04/26/1986. Chernobyl, USSR - $ 259.336 billion
2. 03.11.2011 Fukushima, Japan - $ 166.089 billion
3. 12/08/1995. Tsuruga, Japan - $ 15.5 billion
4. 03.28.1979. Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA - $ 10.91 billion
5. 01/01/1977. Beloyarsk, USSR - $ 3.5 billion
6. 10/12/1969. Sellafield, UK - $ 2.5 billion
7. 03/09/1985. Athens, Alabama, USA - $ 2.114 billion
8. 02.22.1977. Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - $ 1.965 billion
9. 05/01/1968. Sellafield, United Kingdom - $ 1.9 billion
10. 03/19/1971. Sellafield, United Kingdom - $ 1.33 billion
11. 04/11/1986. Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA - $ 1.157 billion
12. 05/01/1967. Chapelcross, UK - $ 1.1 billion
13. 09.09.1982. Chernobyl, USSR - $ 1.1 billion
14. 01.08. 1983. Pickering, Canada - $ 1 billion
15. 09/26/1973. Sellafield, UK - $ 990 million

It is the “problematic and catastrophically incomplete” incident statistics from the IAEA that explains the undervaluation of risks in previous studies. The new database of incidents is laid out in free access for use by everyone: a .csv file .

Professor Benjamin Sovakul (Benjamin Sovacool) from the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex explains that their scientific work clearly demonstrates flaws in the IAEA methodology for predicting risks, especially the consequences of extreme events. Simply put, the next nuclear disaster will occur much earlier and will be much larger than society expects , based on risk assessments from atomic energy agency experts.

Researchers also propose to fundamentally changeInternational Nuclear Event Scale (INES). The INES scale was developed in 1988 and, since 1990, has been used for the purpose of uniformity of assessment of emergency cases associated with accidental radiation releases to the environment at nuclear power plants. The IAEA recommends that member countries be notified within 24 hours of all accidents above hazard level 2, when there are at least minor emissions of radiation outside the production site, as well as in cases of level 0 and 1 events, if required by public interest outside the country, in which they occurred.

According to the authors of the scientific work, the INES scale is extremely inaccurate, poorly formulated and often contradictory. For example, Fukushima and Chernobyl on the INES scale are rated at a maximum of 7 points, although for actual damage only Fukushima should get a level of 10 or 11, say scientists.

Scaling and more complete incident statistics are some of the measures needed to increase the safety of nuclear power in the future. The authors emphasize that they do not want to bury the industry at all; they simply call for more accurate assessment of risks.

The scientific work "Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents" was published March 22, 2016 in the journal Risk Analysisin open access (doi: 10.1111 / risa.12587).

The scientific work "Reassessing the safety of nuclear power" was published in May 2016 in the journal Energy Research & Social Science in open access (doi: 10.1016 / j.erss.2015.12.12.026).