Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd - Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser - Princeton Science ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Dual Use: Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons
Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd
Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser
The idea of a wondrous future pow- United States and Soviet Union pro- mistakes, in particular when perform-
ered by atomic energy is now a hun- duced tens of thousands of nuclear ing routine-operations over extended
dred years old. Fredrick Soddy and weapons, and were joined as nuclear periods. The past six decades have
Ernest Rutherford discovered in 1901 weapons states by the United King- shown that nuclear technology does
that radioactivity was part of the dom, France, China, Israel, India, and not tolerate error.
process by which atoms changed from Pakistan, and recently perhaps North Nuclear energy is perhaps the
one kind to another and involved the Korea. Many other states tried and for primary example of what are called
release of energy. Soon, Soddy was a variety of reasons abandoned their ‘high-risk technologies’ with ‘catas-
writing in popular magazines that ra- nuclear weapons ambitions. Iran still trophic potential’; for such tech-
dioactivity was a potentially “inex- persists. Others may also try, as the nologies, “no matter how effective
haustible” source of energy, and offer- United States becomes ever more bel- conventional safety devices are, there
ing a vision of an atomic future where ligerent in remaking the world as it is a form of accident that is inevitable,
it would be possible to “transform a sees fit and meets resistance. and such accidents are a ‘normal’ con-
desert continent, thaw the frozen At the same time, the peaceful sequence of the system.”4 There is, in
poles, and make the whole earth one use of nuclear power has fallen far short, no escape from failures of the
smiling Garden of Eden.”1 The prom- short of what was promised because system. For those countries that have
ise of an “atomic age,” with nuclear en- of the enduring problems of nuclear nuclear facilities but have not yet had
ergy as the global, utopian technology safety, high costs, nuclear prolifera- a nuclear accident, it may only be a
for the satisfaction of human needs, has tion, and public opposition. Nuclear matter of time and luck. Continuing
been a recurring theme ever since. industries have stagnated in the states reliance on nuclear energy and build-
Soddy also saw that atomic energy that were pioneers in the technology ing and operating more nuclear reac-
could possibly be used to create terrible such as the United States, the United tors only serves to increase the risk.
new weapons. It is perhaps no surprise Kingdom, and Russia. Some states set The consequences of a severe
in an international system dominated up nuclear energy programs and then accident at a large nuclear power reac-
by competing, armed nation-states that decided to phase them out. What little tor were made apparent by the 1986
the first practical application of atomic new building is taking place, is in Chernobyl disaster, which was trig-
energy came in 1945 when the United states that came late into the nuclear gered by errors of judgment by the re-
States built the first atomic bombs and age, such as China and India. actor operators. In its report on the
used them to destroy the Japanese cities Despite this, a large-scale expan- accident, the United Nations Scientif-
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb sion of nuclear energy is being urged ic Committee on the Effects of Atom-
was, American leaders said, the “win- by some proponents as a way to grap- ic Radiation noted that there was se-
ning weapon.” ple with the problem of climate vere radioactive contamination of
This display of the awesome change now being brought on by the about 150,000 square kilometers of
power of atomic technology served to accumulation of greenhouse gases the former Soviet Union, and the fall-
revive and strengthen the visions of an from burning fossil fuels over the past out affected “practically every coun-
atomic solution to economic and social hundred or so years. But amidst the try in the northern hemisphere,” and
problems. American newspapers, for talk of a second chance for nuclear en- smaller amounts of radioactivity
instance, predicted an atomic utopia, ergy, there is some recognition that a penetrated into the southern hemi-
“a world of unlimited power, unlimit- nuclear future may be dark. sphere.5 Humanity was unavoidably
ed abundance – a world limited only We outline below some particu- linked together on a global scale.
by man’s capacity to imagine new lar concerns about nuclear safety and A 2005 study by the Chernobyl
wants and needs.”2 Lewis Strauss, the nuclear proliferation and suggest that Forum estimated that around 4,000
head of the United States Atomic En- any large-scale global expansion of people will eventually die due to radia-
ergy Commission famously declared nuclear energy generation will bring tion exposure from the accident.6
in 1954 that nuclear energy meant “our new dangers and not be of much help However, the Chernobyl Forum’s Ex-
children will enjoy in their homes elec- in dealing with climate change. pert Group on Health, coordinated by
trical energy too cheap to meter.”3 the World Health Organization, sug-
What the world saw over the Normal Nuclear Accidents gested in its report that there might be
past fifty years was the construction over 8,000 deaths from cancer and
of vast facilities for the production of It is one of humanity’s oldest and most leukemia because of the accident.7
highly enriched uranium and plu- hard-earned pieces of wisdom that There have also been long-term conse-
tonium for nuclear weapons. The even the best-trained people make quences for the survivors and their fel-
INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 2006 4Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd
low citizens. A 2002 study commis- many of our developments secret as ful of states (even though under the
sioned by UNDP and UNICEF with possible; we would locate our plants, NPT all signatories are allowed to de-
the support of UN-OCHA and not where they would do the most velop and exploit these technologies).
WHO found that in Ukraine, Belarus, good for the production of power, but These policies are a clear recognition of
and Russia a total of over 118,000 peo- where they would do the most good the proliferation dangers of civil nu-
ple were evacuated and over 230,000 for protection against enemy attack.”10 clear power and the particular prob-
resettled (and over 11,000 still expect- The difference in scale between lems of uranium enrichment and plu-
ing resettlement) because of the acci- civilian and military nuclear programs tonium reprocessing facilities and
dent and observed that “[t]he affected is important. A 40 MW(th) reactor like attendant capabilities.
population – those exposed to radio- CIRUS in India produces enough plu-
active fallout, remaining in the affected tonium for about two nuclear weapons Nuclear Futures
areas, or forced to relocate – continue a year, while one of India’s small,
to face disproportionate suffering in roughly 700MW(th) power reactors Nuclear energy is now being offered
terms of health, social conditions, and (which produces ca. 200 MW electric as a way to solve the problem of
economic opportunity… Many have power) can yield about ten times that global-warming-induced climate
found it difficult to adapt and continue much plutonium a year. A similar case change. To significantly reduce
to face serious psychological, econom- holds for uranium enrichment; about greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear
ic, and social problems.”8 150 tSWU (or 150,000 separative work power would have to expand sever-
The study went on to note that units) are required to produce the an- al-fold. It is worth asking what
there have been broader and more en- nual low-enriched uranium fuel for a would be the proliferation implica-
during social and economic conse- 1,000 MW(e) nuclear power reactor, tions of such an expansion. We ig-
quences, observing that “[t]he acci- while ten percent of this enrichment nore for the moment whether nu-
dent has also had a continuing impact capacity could produce 100 kg of high- clear energy would in fact help
on the opportunities and well-being ly enriched uranium, enough for sever- lessen climate change as well as the
of a much wider circle of the inhabi- al nuclear weapons. political and economic obstacles that
tants of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, There is a long history of how make such an expansion scenario un-
through the negative image that it has states have inter-woven their civil and realistic in the first place.
created for large areas of these coun- military nuclear ambitions and Here, for illustrative purposes,
tries. It has imposed a heavy burden capabilities. UK, France, China, Is- let us assume that nuclear power
on the national budgets through the rael, India, and Pakistan built their grows to about 1,500 GW(e), which
cost of clean-up, compensation and nuclear weapons programs on an corresponds to a four-fold expansion
recovery… These commitments have infrastructure developed supposedly from today’s level and, if achieved by
diverted resources away from other for nuclear energy. Iraq, North Korea, 2050, would be equivalent to only
priorities, such as health, education and Iran, all signatories of the 1970 about 28% of the estimated global
and investment.”9 Future generations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, electricity supply, compared to
will pay the price. concealed their nuclear weapons am- about 15% today. This is about the
bitions behind a ‘peaceful’ nuclear upper limit for nuclear capacity for
Normal Nuclear Proliferation program. At the same time, it should 2050 adopted in a 2003 MIT study,
be noted, the US has started produc- The Future of Nuclear Power.12
The fact that a nuclear energy com- ing tritium for its nuclear weapons Most studies on the future of nu-
plex can be established for peaceful stockpile at civil power reactors.11 clear power simply assume a global nu-
purposes and then put to use for pro- It was recognition of the overlap clear capacity of 1,000 GW(e), 1,500
ducing weapons materials was recog- between civil and military nuclear ma- GW(e), or sometimes even 10,000
nized very early on. Robert Oppen- terials and capabilities that led to the GW(e), as if it would “just be there,” i.e.
heimer, the head of the United States’ system of safeguards on civil nuclear assuming nuclear power plants located
Manhattan project that produced the facilities, starting in the 1950s. As part nowhere in particular. The MIT study
first atomic bombs in 1945, noted in of the NPT, non-nuclear weapon states did not shy away from making predic-
1946 that if there were an effort to ban are required to declare and open their tions about the actual distribution of nu-
all nuclear weapons: civil nuclear facilities for international clear capacities in a global expansion sce-
“We would not make atomic inspection, so as to detect significant nario and estimated that 56 countries
weapons, at least not to start with, but amounts of material being diverted for could have commercial nuclear plants in
we would build enormous plants, and illicit nuclear weapons purposes. One a 1,500 GW(e) world, including many
we would design these plants in such a measure of the failure of these efforts is that currently have none, such as Viet-
way that they could be converted with that the United States has been seeking nam, Indonesia, the Philippines,
the maximum ease and the minimum to deny North Korea, Iraq, and Iran Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, New
time delay to the production of atomic key elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, Zealand, Norway, Italy, Austria, Poland,
weapons saying, this is just in case and is now proposing to limit future Turkey, Venezuela, Portugal, Israel,
somebody two-times us; we would access to uranium enrichment and plu- Libya, Algeria, Uzbekistan, Morocco,
stockpile uranium; we would keep as tonium reprocessing to all but a hand- Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, etc.13
5 INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 2006Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser
FIGURE 1: Hypothetical distribution of enrichment capacities for a 1,500 GW(e) nuclear world, in which 56 countries operate commercial power re-
actors and 16 countries operate large-scale uranium enrichment facilities with a global capacity of 225,000 tSWU per year. Note that only 5 tSWU suf-
fice to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon a year.
One can infer the nuclear fuel fears about proliferation, but in a fu- world will inevitably lead to a fur-
cycle infrastructure required to sup- ture built around a large expansion of ther increase in large-scale and
port such a crowd of nuclear pow- nuclear power, Iran might operate en- small-scale research and develop-
ered countries. We assume continued richment facilities with a total capaci- ment (R&D) activities around the
reliance on the currently dominant ty of almost 3,000 tSWU/yr. For com- world. With respect to proliferation
pressurized water reactor technolo- parison, less than 5 tSWU are enough, concerns, this is the single most im-
gy, using low-enriched fuel based on in principle, to produce sufficient portant dilemma of nuclear power: a
the once-through fuel cycle. From a highly enriched uranium for one nu- nuclear program that is small – or
non-proliferation perspective, this is clear weapon a year. even completely irrelevant – from a
superior to alternative scenarios in- Similarly, more countries may commercial perspective is generally
volving reprocessing and separation explore plutonium reprocessing, in large enough to support a substantial
of plutonium, which is a directly nu- spite of its extremely unfavorable eco- nuclear weapons program.
clear-weapon-usable material. This nomics and environmental and prolif- It is likely that if nuclear power
reactor-fleet, however, would require eration concerns, as a way to defer de- begins to expand rapidly on a global
a huge global enrichment capacity cisions about the final disposal of scale, there would be increasing con-
(see Figure 1).14 nuclear waste. This reckless strategy of cerns about nuclear proliferation, as
The projected enrichment kicking the nuclear can down the road many countries explore many new
infrastructure is daunting, both in size for future generations to deal with has technologies. Thus, even if nuclear en-
and distribution. Countries with no already been adopted by a few states, ergy ultimately fails to expand as
or negligible current commercial nu- including Japan and perhaps soon by imagined by some today, we will have
clear power programs – such as Iran, the United States as part of its Global to face lots of ‘proliferation noise’ in
Pakistan, Mexico, or Indonesia – Nuclear Energy Partnership. the international system that mixes up
would deploy and operate large-scale The much greater stocks and and makes it difficult to identify and
enrichment facilities. It is predictable flows of uranium and plutonium as- deal with ‘real’ proliferation as well as
that global enrichment operations at sociated with nuclear energy pro- legitimate and unwarranted fears of
this scale would periodically lead to grams require an extremely prudent covert military programs. As the Iraq
suspicions, allegations, and inter- approach with respect to the idea of war showed, some states may not hes-
national crises. Iran’s plan for its expanding nuclear power in the fu- itate in feeding and then taking advan-
Natanz facility to have a maximum ture. At the same time, any effort to tage of proliferation fears as a pretext
capacity of 250 tSWU/yr have incited expand nuclear power around the to go to war.
INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 2006 6Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd
Nuclear Power and Climate uncertain but high future costs of nu- for these problems, as the 2003 MIT
Change clear energy; nuclear energy’s need for study The Future of Nuclear Power
a large, centralized power generation was compelled to conclude:
The new argument being advanced for and distribution system that serves to “We have not found and, based on
nuclear energy is that it offers a solution hinder further development of small- current knowledge, do not believe it is
to climate change, or at least to lessen scale renewable and distributed energy realistic to expect that there are new re-
the scale of global warming by reducing supplies; as a large-scale supply-side actor and fuel cycle technologies that si-
future greenhouse gas emissions. But technological ‘fix,’ nuclear energy un- multaneously overcome the problems of
nuclear power would primarily con- dermines energy efficiency options; cost, safety, waste, and proliferation.”21
tribute to electricity production and, and lastly, the security and safety risks Nuclear energy also offers a mar-
therefore, would be unable to mitigate associated with nuclear proliferation.19 ginal but costly solution to the prob-
about two thirds of global CO2 emis- These problems are worth keeping in lem of climate change. The brittleness
sions, which are due to the fuels-used- mind in any debate on the future of of nuclear power actually creates dan-
directly (FUDs) in industry, transporta- nuclear energy in any country. gers for constraining future green-
tion, and the residential/commercial There are alternatives. For exam- house gas emissions.22 Even a single
sectors.15 The bulk of greenhouse emis- ple, a 1998 study performed for the major accident is likely to stop any at-
sions would remain to be addressed. European Union developed a scenario tempt to sustain current levels or to ex-
Nuclear energy can at best hope for a European energy system based on pand nuclear power – in fact, if such an
to substitute for the use of coal, the renewable energy sources that would accident occurred in the U.S. or Wes-
dominant fossil fuel used to produce reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 tern Europe, it would mean the end of
electricity. But coal is very abundant (compared to 1990) and phase out nu- nuclear power in these regions. Build-
and inexpensive, and it will remain so clear energy at the same time.20 A cen- ing more nuclear power risks the dan-
for many decades to come. It is there- tral finding of this and similar studies is ger of being stranded up the nuclear
fore naïve to assume that coal will sim- that there is no simple, one-size tech- creek without a paddle, where having
ply be abandoned on a global scale. nological solution to energy produc- invested enormous resources in an ex-
Countries with large domestic reserves tion that can be applied everywhere. pensive and inflexible technology, and
of low-cost coal and rapidly growing The identified energy systems are very having built up a formidable nuclear
economies will use their coal resources; heterogeneous, strongly depending on legacy, there would be no significant
China for instance plans to increase its country-specific conditions: offshore contribution to meeting global energy
reliance on both coal and nuclear ener- wind electricity dominates in Den- needs. In such a situation, clean and
gy, with predictions of a doubling of the mark, while solar-thermal and photo- safe renewable alternatives could take a
use of coal for power and heat genera- voltaic electricity is strong in Spain and long time to come on stream.
tion in two decades.16 Concerns about other South European countries. This Given all this, it is worth asking
climate change may slow down and must be accompanied by substantial why nuclear energy is still on the table
limit the scale of this process at best. reductions in the demand for primary as an option. A large part of it may be
It seems that if no solution to the energy in all sectors of modern society. due to a continuing identification of
“coal problem” can be found, then no The list of necessary steps is long and nuclear technology as an advanced
solution to the climate change problem these steps have to be taken swiftly. technology, as representing the future.
exists. However, compared to FUDs, With every year that passes without It has been observed that nuclear ener-
almost complete “decarbonization” of decisive action, further bottlenecks are gy proponents always talk in the ‘fu-
electricity production is relatively created and the costs of changing poli- ture tense,’ that is “in terms of what it
straightforward and can be done using cy become ever greater. will bring rather than what it has al-
existing non-nuclear technologies.17 ready wrought or what it requires
This may be more attractive than in- Conclusion from society to maintain operation.”23
vesting in large-scale nuclear expansion. This succeeds in so far as the public
This is recognized in a major The hopes invested in nuclear techno- and elites continue to believe in an ide-
2006 report by the UK government’s logy are as old as the basic scientific ology of ‘progress,’ ceaselessly ‘rising
Sustainable Development Commission ideas that underlie it. The past hundred living standards,’ the need for ‘growth’
which observed that building new nu- years have shown the many problems in the production and consumption of
clear plants is not an answer to tackling with nuclear technology. Particularly material goods, and insist on comfort-
climate change. It concluded that dou- grave are the risks and consequences of able habits of inefficient energy con-
bling nuclear capacity in Great Britain a nuclear accident and the dangers of sumption, all without regard to conse-
would make only a small impact on re- supposedly peaceful nuclear facilities, quence for society or planet.
ducing carbon emissions by 2035.18 material, and knowledge being used The tension between nuclear fears
The report identified five major prob- for nuclear weapons programs. Con- and a reluctance to give up the actually
lems to continued or increased reliance tinued reliance and any large-scale ex- existing comforts of everyday life is re-
on nuclear power: the absence of a pansion of nuclear energy would per- vealed dramatically in a 2006 Interna-
proven method for safe and secure petuate and worsen these dangers. And tional Atomic Energy Agency public
long-term nuclear waste disposal; the there is no imminent technological fix opinion survey conducted in 18 coun-
7 INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 2006Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser
UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group gration of Renewable Energy Sources into the
tries that found most people are op- “Health,” Working Draft, August 31, 2005; European Energy System, Physica-Verlag, 1998.
posed to building new nuclear reactors www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/cher- 21 MIT, op.cit., p. 76.
but seem to support continued opera- nobyl/EGH%20Master%20file%202005. 22 For the idea of ‘brittle’ energy systems, see:
tion of existing reactors. The poll con- 08.24.pdf; Table 16.4 (p. 145) gives a model- Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins,
ducted in states with and without large based prediction of over 8,000 deaths from Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National
excess cancer, and Table 16.2 (p. 141) gives Security, Brick House Publishing, 2001;
nuclear industries found that overall 216 emergency worker deaths eventually at- www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1011.php.
59% were opposed to building new tributable to radiation. 23 John Byrne and Steven Hoffman, The Ideol-
plants while 62% of respondents said 8 The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl ogy of Progress and the Globalization of
existing nuclear facilities should contin- Nuclear Accident: A Strategy for Recovery, Nuclear Power, in: John Byrne and Steven
ue to be used.24 This suggests that the A Report Commissioned by UNDP and Hoffman (eds.), Governing The Atom: The
UNICEF with the support of UN-OCHA politics of risk, New Brunswick: Transaction
door will slowly close on the nuclear and WHO, January 2002; www.undp.org/ Publishers, 1996, p. 12.
future as old nuclear power plants fi- dpa/publications/chernobyl.pdf. 24 International Atomic Energy Agency
nally shut down and plans for new 9 Ibid. (IAEA), Global Public Opinion on Nuclear
plants command no public support. 10 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Failure to Achieve Issues and the IAEA - Final Report from 18
Rather than wait for nuclear ener- International Control of Atomic Energy, in: Countries, 2006; www.iaea.org/Publications/
Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch Reports /gponi_report2005.pdf.
gy to wither away, the international (eds.), The Atomic Age, Simon and Schuster,
community should make a virtue of a 1963, p. 55.
necessity. We need to plan collectively 11 Kenneth Bergeron, Nuclear Weapons: The
how to phase out reliance on nuclear en- Death of No Dual-use, Bulletin of the
ergy, invest in energy conservation and Atomic Scientists, January/February 2004, This article has first been published in
pp. 15-17; www.thebulletin.org/article.
efficiency and renewable sources of en- INES Newsletter, No 52, April 2006,
php?art_ofn= jf04bergeron.
ergy, and explore paths towards a safe, 12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology as part of a discussion on the pros and
more secure, and ecologically sustain- (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power: An cons of nuclear energy. PDF files of
able form of social life and economy. Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003; INES Newsletters are available at
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower. If this www.inesglobal.com/newsletter/New
four-fold nuclear expansion was achieved by
letter_main.html.
1 Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History 2100, nuclear energy would be about the same
Of Images, Harvard University Press, 1988, fraction of total electricity capacity that it is
p. 6. today assuming a business as usual scenario.
2 Paul Boyer, By The Bomb’s Early Light: 13 The MIT study generated a country-by-
American Thought And Culture At The country distribution of nuclear capacity
Dawn Of The Atomic Age, University of based on “various country-specific factors,
North Carolina Press, 1985, pp. 111-113. such as current nuclear power deployment,
3 Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska, The Nu- urbanization, stage of economic develop-
clear Power Deception: U.S. Nuclear ment, and energy resource base.” MIT,
Mythology From Electricity ‘Too Cheap To op.cit., p. 111.
Meter’ To ‘Inherently Safe’ Reactors, Apex 14 The global distribution of enrichment capac-
Press, 1999, p. xix. ities in Figure 1 is based on our conservative
4 Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents: assumption that only countries with an in-
Living With High-Risk Technologies, stalled nuclear capacity of at least 10 GW(e)
Basic Books, 1984, pp. 3-4. would acquire domestic enrichment plants.
5 United Nations Scientific Committee In addition, only some major exporters of
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, uranium would ultimately do so, too (here:
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Australia, Canada, and South Africa). Not
UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General As- counting individual countries in Western
sembly – Volume 2, United Nations, 2000, Europe, 16 countries would provide enrich-
pp. 453-566. ment services. The remaining users of nu-
6 Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental clear energy would be pure “reactor-states.”
and Socio-Economic Impacts, Chernobyl 15 International Energy Agency, CO2 from
Fuel Combustion - Fact Sheet, 2005;
Forum September 2005; www.iaea.org/ www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/co2_fact.
NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/05- pdf.
8601_Chernobyl.pdf. The Chernobyl Forum 16 He Youguo, China‘s Coal Demand
includes International Atomic Energy Outlook for 2020 and Analysis of Coal
Agency, World Health Organization Supply Capacity, International Energy
Zia Mian is a research scientist and Alexan-
(WHO), United Nations Development Pro- Agency; www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2003/ der Glaser is a member of the research staff
gramme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Or- beijing/4Youg.pdf. in the Program on Science and Global Se-
ganization, United Nations Environment 17 Robert H. Williams, Advanced Energy Supply curity at Princeton University, USA. They are
Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office Technologies, in: UNDP, World Energy As-
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
also members of the core research and co-
sessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sus-
(UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific tainability, 2000, pp. 274-329.
ordination staff of the International Panel on
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radia- 18 UK Sustainable Development Commission, Fissile Materials and of the International Net-
tion (UNSCEAR), the World Bank, and the The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon work of Engineers and Scientists Against
governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Economy, 2006; www.sd-commission.org. Proliferation (INESAP). They can be con-
7 World Health Organization, Health Effects uk/pages/060306.html. tacted at zia@princeton.edu and aglaser@
of the Chernobyl Accident and Special 19 Ibid.
Health Care Programmes, Report of the princeton.edu.
20 LTI-Research Group (ed.), Long-Term Inte-
INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 2006 8You can also read
