A sampling of what's available...
Special Topics
Special Topics - Nuclear Energy
Do not go gentle into that radiation zone
“The nuclear industry and the Commission refuse to encourage such widespread public participation [in planning] for fear of diminishing the public acceptability of nuclear power plants.”
The unbearable ambiguity of knowing: Making sense of Fukushima
Information and transparency are desirable, but they will not make the ambiguities surrounding the Fukushima crisis disappear. Technical expertise alone cannot provide the clarity we seek.
The emotions of nuclear experts
Like most people, nuclear experts may respond to crises with emotions such as anger and dread, which can lead to panic and regressive behavior.
Preventing a nuclear terrorist version of Fukushima
The nuclear safety "stress tests" planned for Europe should be expanded to include tests that evaluate the security of nuclear materials around the world.
Is the United States prepared for a nuclear reactor accident?
Although a catastrophic failure of emergency backup systems at a US nuclear reactor may be unlikely, solid planning and preparations are in order -- and should begin with determining whether an emergency zone extends 10 or 20 miles from a nuclear power plant.
Fukushima, risk, and probability: Expect the unexpected
A probabilistic approach to risk leaves us unprepared for "infrequent catastrophes." Nuclear plants require a "possibilistic" approach that allows us to design safeguards against the worst-case scenario.
Fukushima: An industrial disaster but not a nuclear 'apocalypse'
The ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is not a cause for panic but rather an opportunity to improve safety worldwide.
The road not taken: Can Fukushima put us on a path toward nuclear transparency?
The origins of civilian nuclear power positioned our society, and the nuclear industry, to favor military needs and financial gain over public understanding. Until this approach is changed, history will continue to repeat itself in devastating ways.
Chernobyl: Answers slipping away
After the 1986 explosion, about 135,000 people were evacuated from a zone 30 kilometers in radius around the reactor complex. Four years after the accident we know little more than when it happened but the news is growing worse.
Nuclear power browning out
When Unit 4 blasted radionuclides all over the Northern Hemisphere, it all but wrecked the global nuclear power industry.
Truth was an early casualty
Soviet and Russian authorities have never told the full story of the critical first ten days.
The decade of despair
A decade after Unit 4 exploded, there is no consensus on the number of victims, nor are Soviet-style reactors any safer.
Inside the beast
Six who were there tell their stories.
Estimating long-term health effects
Hippel and Cochran delve into the long-term health effects that followed the 1986 accident that occurred at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station.
How radiation victims suffer
Chernobyl represented the largest recorded experience of the effects of whole-body radiation and should serve as a warning about more than just nuclear power plants.
What happened at reactor four
The accident began Saturday, April 26. A sudden increase in power was followed by an explosion of hydrogen. This was followed by a fire in the reactor building and a separate fire in the reactor core.
A nuclear power advocate reflects on Chernobyl
“…humans, in opting for nuclear energy, must pay the price of extraordinary technical vigilance for the energy they derive from nuclear fission if they are to avoid serious trouble.”
Chernobyl in context
The word “Chernobyl” abruptly entered the world’s vocabulary in 1986. In addition to causing death and disruption to citizens living in the plant’s vicinity, the accident sent radioactive clouds drifting over a wide area of the western Soviet Union, Europe, and other parts of the globe.