Recommended for: Grades 6-12
Resource: Nuclear Reaction: Searching for Safety
Media Type:
HTML Document
Size: 118.5 KB
In this text resource from the FRONTLINE Web site, an excerpt from Robert Pool's book Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology, the author questions why civilization went ahead with what many believe to be an inherently dangerous technology, nuclear power. Pool chronicles the first two decades of the evolution of nuclear power, focusing on the attempts to balance rapid development with public safety.
Teachers' Domain, Nuclear Reaction: Searching for Safety, published January 22, 2004, retrieved on ,
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/phy03.sci.phys.energy.safetysearch/
- Background Essay
- Questions for Discussion
- Standards
In this resource, science writer Robert Pool examines the first two decades of the evolution of nuclear power, in particular the thinking that went into ensuring public safety. From today's perspective, knowing what we do now about the dangers of nuclear power, in large part from the meltdown events at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, Pool argues that the Atomic Energy Commission -- the responsible agency -- overemphasized development at the expense of safety.
The initial mandate given to nuclear engineers was to consider all possible scenarios in which things might go wrong in nuclear reactors and to design them so that no harm would befall the public in the event of accidents. This eventually changed so that risk evaluations were made according to the probability of a certain type of accident occurring and its consequences. With the philosophical shift came acceptance that some types of accident could happen (perhaps once in a thousand years), and that some measure of harm would follow (perhaps one death per event). Thus, a "safe" reactor was one that was very unlikely to have an accident, rather than one engineered for complete safety. This acceptance of even the slightest risk, Pool seems to suggest, explains the public's early -- and lasting -- uneasiness about nuclear power.
Unlike fossil fuel plants, which run at full power until something breaks with little danger to the public, Pool points out that nuclear power plants are far more complex and major accidents can be triggered by little things. With so many components interacting, accidents can happen in so many different ways that they are in essence an inevitable consequence of the technology, not just anomalies.
When reading the excerpt from Pool's book, it is important to keep in mind that his analyses and conclusions are among the many expressed in the ongoing debate over nuclear power safety.
The initial mandate given to nuclear engineers was to consider all possible scenarios in which things might go wrong in nuclear reactors and to design them so that no harm would befall the public in the event of accidents. This eventually changed so that risk evaluations were made according to the probability of a certain type of accident occurring and its consequences. With the philosophical shift came acceptance that some types of accident could happen (perhaps once in a thousand years), and that some measure of harm would follow (perhaps one death per event). Thus, a "safe" reactor was one that was very unlikely to have an accident, rather than one engineered for complete safety. This acceptance of even the slightest risk, Pool seems to suggest, explains the public's early -- and lasting -- uneasiness about nuclear power.
Unlike fossil fuel plants, which run at full power until something breaks with little danger to the public, Pool points out that nuclear power plants are far more complex and major accidents can be triggered by little things. With so many components interacting, accidents can happen in so many different ways that they are in essence an inevitable consequence of the technology, not just anomalies.
When reading the excerpt from Pool's book, it is important to keep in mind that his analyses and conclusions are among the many expressed in the ongoing debate over nuclear power safety.
We assign reference terms to each statement within a standards document and to each media resource, and correlations are based upon matches of these terms for a given grade band. If a particular standards document of interest to you is not displayed yet, it most likely has not yet been processed by ASN or by Teachers' Domain.
Loading Standards
Teachers' Domain is proud to be a Pathways portal to the National Science Digital Library.
Please answer this survey question:
Thank you!
Your response has been received. Thanks for helping improve Teachers' Domain!
Source: FRONTLINE: "Nuclear Reaction"
Resource Produced by:
Collection Developed by:
Collection Funded by:
