It's not the deaths that are intolerable; it's the dollars. In the US, the response to the next sizable nuclear power plant release will be governed by the Price Anderson Act and the American tort system. Under Price Anderson, any US nuclear power plant over 100 MWe must purchase liability insurance equal to ``the maximum amount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms from private sources". That amount is determined by the NRC, which just increased it to $500 million. This is called Primary Financial Protection.
We know Japan did a very poor job after Fukushima. After Chernobyl, the USSR did a good job of keeping nuclear on-line (two of the 3 remainign Chernobyl units returned in about 6 months,, and abutting Unit 3 was back in a little over a year. But they combined that with a very strange and inconsistent evacuation policy.
It all starts with the compensation system and the radiation harm model. I believe some countries have a form of fixed compensation: so much for a death, loss of leg, loss of eye. etc.
The jury determines guilt but does not set the level of compensation. Fixed compensation is not something new. Maybe I'll look into this.
And we need a radiation harm model that recognizes our ability to repair radiation damage. AFAIK LNT is universal despite its manifest inability to replicate the non-harm observed when large doses are received over long periods. It was used by both the USSR and Japan after their releases to kill a lot of people and ruinthe lives of many more. It will be used again unless the people who know better coalesce around a reasonable, sellable alternative.
Liability is different in countries that are essentially gov controlling the risk ( try suing Vladimir ) The place to watch and change risk policy are with the RE-Insurers such as Swiss-Re / Lloyds etc . The US is known as the Casino for obvious reasons .
Are some other countries handling nuclear accident liability better? How about France, Russia, China?
Good question. The answer is: I don't know.
We know Japan did a very poor job after Fukushima. After Chernobyl, the USSR did a good job of keeping nuclear on-line (two of the 3 remainign Chernobyl units returned in about 6 months,, and abutting Unit 3 was back in a little over a year. But they combined that with a very strange and inconsistent evacuation policy.
It all starts with the compensation system and the radiation harm model. I believe some countries have a form of fixed compensation: so much for a death, loss of leg, loss of eye. etc.
The jury determines guilt but does not set the level of compensation. Fixed compensation is not something new. Maybe I'll look into this.
And we need a radiation harm model that recognizes our ability to repair radiation damage. AFAIK LNT is universal despite its manifest inability to replicate the non-harm observed when large doses are received over long periods. It was used by both the USSR and Japan after their releases to kill a lot of people and ruinthe lives of many more. It will be used again unless the people who know better coalesce around a reasonable, sellable alternative.
Liability is different in countries that are essentially gov controlling the risk ( try suing Vladimir ) The place to watch and change risk policy are with the RE-Insurers such as Swiss-Re / Lloyds etc . The US is known as the Casino for obvious reasons .