Mass Radiation Exposure discussion

This is for the group preparing proposals for the prevention of massive radiation exposure for our “Platform for Survival.” You are welcome to join any of the other six groups preparing for Science for Peace’s “How to Save the World in a Hurry” conference. You will find a prototype “Platform for Survival” on this website’s homepage or at http://tosavetheworld.ca/how-to-save-the-world/platform-for-survival/. It will expand over time as new policy proposals are suggested. Then the final 25-item platform will be selected and adopted at the conference in spring 2018.

We encourage you to enter your remarks and proposed policies for the platform below as comments and replies to comments. TO PROPOSE A PUBLIC POLICY, ENTER IT AS A SINGLE SENTENCE OF NO MORE THAN 15 WORDS, PRINTED IN ALL CAPS. Please say who will carry out the policy — eg the UN, national governments, corporations — and what work/decisions will be undertaken.

You are also welcome to provide a longer argument in favour of your proposal. You can also include links to supporting material and/or upload a relevant Word or PDF document. While everyone can comment or reply, you need a password to create a wholly new post. Let us know if you need an account for that but you probably can say everything you want to say as a comment or reply.

Facebook posts and comments

Here's a proposal for you to consider: ALL STATES WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS MUST UPDATE THEIR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS EVERY THREE YEARS. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Here's a policy proposal to discuss:
THE UN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM SHALL PROVIDE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ON RADIATION TO ALL UPON REQUEST.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Northwatch has proposed this policy for your consideration: THE IAEA SHALL INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND INCLUDE CIVIL SOCIETY AND STAKEHOLDERS IN MAKING DECISIONS. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Please comment on this policy proposal:
ALL STATES SHALL MAINTAIN PROXIMITY, REVERSIBILITY, AND RETRIEVABILITY IN LONGTERM PLANS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

How about this proposal?
ALL STATES SHALL PLAN, WITH PUBLIC REVIEW, THE LONG-TERM CONTROL AND SAFE STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Here's another one from Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch: ALL STATES SHALL HALT TRANSFERS OF RADIOACTIVE FUEL AND WASTE ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

How about this proposal from Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch?
ALL STATES SHALL MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE THE INVENTORY OF ALL READIOACTIVE MATERIALS, FUELS AND WASTE.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

What are your thoughts about the following proposal for reducing the risk of radiation exposure?
ALL STATES SHALL TRANSITION TO DISTRIBUTED ELECTRICITY, EFFICIENTLY USING LOCAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Here's a public policy proposal for you to consider:

WITHIN TWO YEARS, ALL STATES SHALL PLAN TO SECURE AND PHASE OUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

SfP Radiation Exposure panel shared Big Think's How to Save the World from Future Disasters Being Ignored Today. ... See MoreSee Less

Why do powerful people ignore obvious warning signs from established experts about future distasters? Security expert Richard Clarke gives his 4 steps to preventing "Cassandra" disasters like Bernie Madoff, Hurricane Katrina, and the Fukushima meltdowns.

View on Facebook

Please criticize (or suggest an improvement for) the following policy proposal: "ALL STATES SHALL UNDERGO AND PUBLICIZE IAEA SAFETY REVIEWS OF EXISTING AND PLANNED NUCLEAR REACTORS.”

There are some questionable implications of this proposal, and indeed not all concerned experts will endorse it. We need to think it through. The problem is that many (I think probably most) activists who deal with radiation safety issues nowadays believe that the top priority should be to shut down all reactors, everywhere. They say that reactors are inherently dangerous and that we should not imply that they can ever be made safe. From their perspective, if we call for mandatory safety reviews, we are implying that some risky reactors can be identified and repaired enough to be tolerated. In fact, there is a debate about whether to "refurbish" some of the older existing reactors. If we say we want a safety review, does that necessarily mean that we want to spend a fortune refurbishing a reactor that is still going to be a hazard afterward?

That is certainly a conundrum. From the “pro” side, the argument is that not all reactors in the world can be dismantled within the next ten years or so, and in the meantime we should attempt to prevent the most serious potential catastrophes. Maybe some of the most dangerous reactors can be identified now and either shut down first or improved somewhat, without implying that they are really acceptable.

What do you think about this dilemma? If you have another idea, please share it here.

Other critics, by the way, argue that even if we want a rigorous safety review of all existing reactors, the IAEA may not be the best organization to do so. Its mandate has always been to promote the use of "peaceful nuclear energy" and the NPT seems to support that mandate. It might be in a conflict of interest if authorized to conduct new levels of safety inspections. Please share your thoughts about this issue too
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Science for Peace has a major new project and we invite you to participate.

At least six potential catastrophes now threaten humankind. Many separate organizations are trying to prevent one or another of them. Because the problems are inter-dependent, these NGOs are addressing different parts of the same problem. We can be more effective if we recognize our policies as aligned. Science for Peace invites you to discuss our policy priorities online, and then in a public forum.
tosavetheworld.ca
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

3 Comments

  1. admin

    November 26, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Radiation Exposure links

  2. Why governments do not learn from Chernobyl and Fukushima’s catastrophes? Ontario has three nuclear power facilities and 18 operating reactors, which makes it the largest nuclear jurisdiction in North America and one of the largest in the world. Unfortunately, Ontario is still not prepared for a large-scale emergency and has not updated its emergency preparedness plan or provincial nuclear response plan since 2008 and 2009 respectively.

    More: http://fromchernobyltofukushima.com/ontario/

    • Alexander, that is a good point to make generally. Maybe you should craft a sentence for the Platoform on this point. Something like: ALL STATES WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS MUST UPDATE THEIR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS EVERY THREE YEARS. (Of course, I leave it to you to write the proposal as you see fit.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*