DEBATE - As the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets from Monday to make recommendations after the catastrophe of Fukushima, two nuclear experts advise on plant safety ...
Twenty-five years after Chernobyl , the catastrophe of Fukushima has renewed concerns about the safety of nuclear plants and led several European countries to abandon their nuclear programs .The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is now trying to reassure taking from Monday to Friday, a conference which should result in recommendations to secure nuclear, in particular by making reactors in operation in stress tests.
Probabilities against certainties
For Bertrand Barré, scientific advisor to Areva , the tests "will be a great virtue" include natural hazards in the hazards to which plants are subjected."In the past, it was well taken care of hardware failures and human, but natural attacks, tornadoes, floods or earthquakes, were not considered in their extreme cases or in case of combinations, such as an earthquake followed by a tidal wave. "
Roland Desbordes, chairman of the Criirad (Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity) , is not convinced by these tests.For him, it's approach to nuclear safety that should be reviewed."We thought in terms of probabilities, calculating the risk of such an event of such a reactor, but we need certainty given the severity of accidents," said he.He said this approach has already demonstrated its failure: "We had two major accidents in the space of 25 years, who had such a low probability of occurring that were considered impossible.In nuclear, even if the risk is 1 in 1 million or 10 million, should not take it. "
The EPR, the plant 'safe'?
For Bertrand Barré, the securing of nuclear power involves the gradual replacement of existing reactors by the latest generation, that is to say, the EPR, whose development has already had positive effects on plants in service."Generation 3 is much better protected: if the heart of the reactor bottom, there is sufficient security systems for the radioactivity escaping is minimal and that one does not need to evacuate the population," he says.Roland Desbordes is skeptical: "You can have it all planned on paper, the EPR has not worked and that the experience will tell if it is safe or not."
"Of course, zero risk does not exist, recognizes Bertrand Barré, but the risk of nuclear is already lower than other forms of electricity generation considering the number of people displaced for dams or accidents in coal mines. "Security has a price, however: the EPR reactors are much more expensive than their predecessors: "The IAEA is an agency for the promotion of nuclear denounces Roland Desbordes, and shoots himself in the foot by putting in place rules that make plants more expensive.So it is not in itself define the rules of safety, "said the president of the Criirad.
Twenty-five years after Chernobyl , the catastrophe of Fukushima has renewed concerns about the safety of nuclear plants and led several European countries to abandon their nuclear programs .The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is now trying to reassure taking from Monday to Friday, a conference which should result in recommendations to secure nuclear, in particular by making reactors in operation in stress tests.
Probabilities against certainties
For Bertrand Barré, scientific advisor to Areva , the tests "will be a great virtue" include natural hazards in the hazards to which plants are subjected."In the past, it was well taken care of hardware failures and human, but natural attacks, tornadoes, floods or earthquakes, were not considered in their extreme cases or in case of combinations, such as an earthquake followed by a tidal wave. "
Roland Desbordes, chairman of the Criirad (Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity) , is not convinced by these tests.For him, it's approach to nuclear safety that should be reviewed."We thought in terms of probabilities, calculating the risk of such an event of such a reactor, but we need certainty given the severity of accidents," said he.He said this approach has already demonstrated its failure: "We had two major accidents in the space of 25 years, who had such a low probability of occurring that were considered impossible.In nuclear, even if the risk is 1 in 1 million or 10 million, should not take it. "
The EPR, the plant 'safe'?
For Bertrand Barré, the securing of nuclear power involves the gradual replacement of existing reactors by the latest generation, that is to say, the EPR, whose development has already had positive effects on plants in service."Generation 3 is much better protected: if the heart of the reactor bottom, there is sufficient security systems for the radioactivity escaping is minimal and that one does not need to evacuate the population," he says.Roland Desbordes is skeptical: "You can have it all planned on paper, the EPR has not worked and that the experience will tell if it is safe or not."
"Of course, zero risk does not exist, recognizes Bertrand Barré, but the risk of nuclear is already lower than other forms of electricity generation considering the number of people displaced for dams or accidents in coal mines. "Security has a price, however: the EPR reactors are much more expensive than their predecessors: "The IAEA is an agency for the promotion of nuclear denounces Roland Desbordes, and shoots himself in the foot by putting in place rules that make plants more expensive.So it is not in itself define the rules of safety, "said the president of the Criirad.
For Further Reading,
