DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Technological Solutions to the Negative Perceptions of Nuclear Power Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advanced Technological Solutions to the Negative Perceptions of Nuclear Power Plants Advanced technological solutions to the negative perceptions of nuclear power plants By Gideon Daniel Joubert Student nr 212274872 Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree: M Tech Electrical Engineering in the faculty of Engineering at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology Supervisor: Dr. Atanda Raji Bellville campus September 2018 DECLARATION I, Gideon Daniel Joubert, declare that the contents of this dissertation represent my own unaided work, and that the dissertation has not previously been submitted for academic examination towards any qualification. Furthermore, it represents my own opinions and not necessarily those of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. G.D. Joubert 27/08/2018 Signed Date ii ABSTRACT Worldwide a movement is underway to replace the burning of limited fossil fuel reserves for power generation with a cleaner, more efficient, yet still reliable and cost-effective method. Even though renewable technologies are often among the most common proposed, they are still limited by factors such as cost when considering large scale generation. Further requirements for replacing fossil fuel generation methods include the need to provide a continuous and reliable output for base load requirements, which is difficult to guarantee when making use of renewables alone. The proposed alternative is nuclear energy, as it is a reliable and cleaner method of power generation as compared to fossil fuels, capable of providing cost effective energy in the long run. The downside to nuclear energy, however, is the negative perception and general dislike of this method of generation, especially among the public who have been around this technology since its early days of implementation. The aim of this study is, therefore, to inform and prove that nuclear technology has evolved and come a long way since its early days, by making use of advanced technological solutions to address the fears associated with this technology from many years ago. The study further aims to prove that technologies such as advanced safety systems, new generations of reactors, advanced containment structures for both reactors and waste containment, as well as new waste disposal methods, have evolved nuclear energy into a safer and cleaner alternative method of power generation. This is achieved by first considering the origin of the negative perceptions surrounding the technology, and the nuclear accidents of the past, which have greatly influenced opinions about nuclear technology even up until today. After identifying the concerns and fears surrounding nuclear energy, research was conducted concerning how the latest technologies and innovations in safety systems are used to address these concerns, and ultimately eliminate the threats where possible. With the biggest concern identified, namely a core meltdown event leading to the release of radioactive material into the environment, two simulations were conducted to illustrate the unlikelihood of such an event occurring. The purpose of these simulations was, moreover, to illustrate the complexity and reliability of the various safety systems incorporated into the design of a nuclear power plant, preventing such a feared release of radioactivity from occurring. The research also importantly revealed that the dangers and possible threats posed by nuclear technology are often grossly overestimated, as under normal operating conditions a coal power plant, in fact, releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant. Further research reveals that the feared nuclear waste, produced by the nuclear industry yet regulated and disposed of properly, is only a small fraction of the highly iii hazardous waste produced on an annual basis worldwide. It is also revealed that in terms of fatalities, fossil fuel generation, on average, is responsible for more deaths annually than the biggest nuclear disasters that have ever occurred. Addressing the fears and concerns surrounding nuclear technology is therefore important, as this valuable resource may otherwise remain under-appreciated and under-utilised because of the misperceptions which currently exist amongst the public. This furthermore results in the unnecessary exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves, and concomitant pollution of the environment – all due to antiquated fears surrounding nuclear power plants. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank: My supervisor and mentor, Dr. Atanda Raji, at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology for always being available and for the encouragement and support throughout the process of this study My family members and friends Mr. Johann Kellerman, Director: Disarmament and Non-Proliferation at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, for his role in the application and approval process of obtaining the relevant software from the IAEA Staff at the IAEA’s simulator contact point, for granting me access to the IAEA simulator software used in this study Laura Kleinhans and ChickPea English for the editing of this dissertation The Cape Peninsula University of Technology My Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is acknowledged. Opinions expressed in this thesis and the conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and not necessarily attributable to the National Research Foundation. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration .................................................................................................................................. ii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... v Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ vi List of figures .............................................................................................................................. ix List of tables ............................................................................................................................... xi Glossary .................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: General concept of the study ..................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.3 Research objectives ..................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Research methodology ................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Delineation of study ...................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Literature study ............................................................................................................. 4 1.7 Modelling and simulation .............................................................................................. 4 1.8 Thesis outline ............................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: Literature review ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1 History and the origin of the public’s fears .................................................................... 6 2.2 Reactor safety .............................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Safety Level 1 ...................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Safety Level 2 ...................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Safety Level 3 ...................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Safety Level 4 ...................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Design of the safety systems ...................................................................................... 12 2.4 Future nuclear reactor technology .............................................................................. 13 2.4.1 Nuclear fusion ...................................................................................................... 13 2.4.2 Small Modular Reactors (SMR) ........................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR) .......................................................................... 14 2.5 Nuclear waste storage ................................................................................................ 16 2.5.1 Storing waste in cementitious materials ............................................................... 16 2.5.2 Turn waste into glass, or enclose in cement ........................................................ 18 Chapter 3: Theory background ................................................................................................. 20 3.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................... 20 3.2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security Operational Skills 2 (Tracing).P65
    Unit - 4 K Operating Skill for handling Natural Disasters Structure 4.1 Objectives 4.2 Introduction 4.3 Operating Skill for natural and nuclear disasters 4.4 Accident Categories 4.5 Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents 4.6 Geological disasters 4.7 Operating Skills for handling Mines and other Explosive Devices 4.8 Operating Skills for handing hijacking situation (other than an airline hijacking 4.9 Operating skills for antivehicle theft operations 4.10 Operating skills for facing a kidnapping or hostage situation 4.11 Operating Skill for handling coal mines and other explosive devices 4.12 Hostage Rights : Law and Practice in Throes of Evolution 4.12.1 Terminology 4.13 Relative Value of Rights 4.14 Conflict of Rights and Obligations 4.15 Hong Kong mourns victims of bus hijacking in the Philoppines 4.16 Rules for Successful Threat Intelligence Teams 4.16.1 Tailor Your Talent 4.16.2 Architect Your Infrastructure 4.16.3 Enable Business Profitability 4.16.4 Communicate Continuously 4.17 Construction Safety Practices 4.17.1 Excavation 4.17.2 Drilling and Blasting 4.17.3 Piling and deep foundations 234 4.18 Planning 4.18.1 Steps in Planning Function 4.18.2 Characteristics of planning 4.18.3 Advantages of planning 4.18.4 Disadvantages of planning 4.1 Objectives The following is a list of general objectives departments should consider when creating an Information Disaster Prevention and Recovery Plan: O Ensure the safety of all employees and visitors at the site/facility O Protect vital information and records O Secure business sites
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl Template.Qxd 16/09/2019 11:08 Page 39
    9Chernobyl_Template.qxd 16/09/2019 11:08 Page 39 39 Chernobyl On 3 February 1987, during a lecture trip to Japan, I was invited to meet five members of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Inc. Zhores Medvedev They wanted to discuss my book, Nuclear Disaster in the Urals, which described the consequences of the Kyshtym disaster, an On 8 August 2019, a explosion at a nuclear waste site in the deadly nuclear explosion Soviet Union in 1957. took place in northern The book, published in New York in 1979 Russia in the vicinity of and translated into Japanese in 1982, was the Nenoksa weapons then still the only published description of testing range. At least five this accident. The Kyshtym disaster was not people are said to have yet included in a list of nuclear accidents died. Subsequently, a prepared by the International Atomic Russian state weather Energy Agency (IAEA). Top of this list, agency confirmed release recorded at a top­of­the­scale 7 in severity, into the atmosphere of was Chernobyl, Three Mile Island was strontium, barium and scale 5, and the fire at Windscale in other radioactive isotopes, England, in 1957, was scale 3. (The indicating that a nuclear International Nuclear Event Scale was reactor was involved in revised several times, subsequently, and the the explosion. fire at Windscale is now reckoned to be Zhores Medvedev died scale 5.) in 2018, before this recent In 1987, I had already started to study the explosion. Back in 2011, available information on Chernobyl he charted a trail of because I was not satisfied with the Soviet nuclear disasters from Report to the IAEA, which blamed mainly Kyshtym in the the power station personnel for gross Cheliabinsk region of operational errors.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefit-Function of Two- Identical Cold Standby Nuclear Reactors System Subject to Failure Due to Radioactivity Or Overheating, Steam Explosion, Fire, and Meltdown
    International Journal on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics (IJMER) ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Benefit-Function of Two- Identical Cold Standby Nuclear Reactors System subject to failure due to radioactivity or Overheating, steam explosion, fire, and meltdown Ashok Kumar Saini BLJS COLLEGE, TOSHAM (BHIWANI) HARYANA INDIA Email ID [email protected] The accident killed 30 people directly and damaged Abstract- A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by approximately $7 billion of property. A study published in the International Atomic Energy Agency as "an event that 2005 estimates that there will eventually be up to 4,000 has led to significant consequences to people, the additional cancer deaths related to the accident among environment or the facility." Examples include lethal those exposed to significant radiation levels. Radioactive effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of the environment, or reactor core melt." The prime Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Approximately 350,000 example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which people were forcibly resettled away from these areas soon a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts after the accident. of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, in 1954. It has also been a key factor in public concern the amount the US federal government uses to define about nuclear facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • 18.06.01 Status Report 2017
    Decommissioning Russia’s old nuclear power reactors: Status update on key processes 2017 The report is made in the frame of the project “From closed rooms to openness”, financially supported by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority over the Nuclear Action Plan. Project partners from Russia, Ukraine and Norway cooperate to promote safe, social and environmental acceptable decommissioning of old nuclear power plant reactors, including handling of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. We believe in openness and participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making processes, including authorities at all levels, business and civil society. Published by • Russian Social-Ecological Union / Friends of the Earth Russia (Russia) • Kola Environmental Center (Apatity, Murmansk Region, Russia) • Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland (St. Petersburg – Leningrad Oblast, Russia) • Za Prirodu/ For Nature (Chelyabinsk, Russia) • Naturvernforbundet/ Friends of the Earth Norway (Norway) Edited by Kjersti Album, Naturvernforbundet/Friends of the Earth Norway Contributions by Oleg Bodrov, Yuri Ivanov, Dag Arne Høystad, Daria Matveenkova, Olga Senova, Vitaly Servetnik, Andrey Talevlin Front page design Kristine Kleppo For more information, please contact the participating partners directly or refer to our reports, which can be found at the pages of Russian Social-Ecological Union: http://rusecounion.ru/decomatom St.Petersburg, Sosnovy Bor, Chelyabinsk, Apatity/Murmansk, Oslo – May 2018 2 Decommissioning Russia’s old nuclear power reactors: Status update on key processes 2017 Decommissioning Russia’s old nuclear power reactors Status update on key processes 2017 3 Decommissioning Russia’s old nuclear power reactors: Status update on key processes 2017 Content 1. Introduction 4 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Radioactive Contamination at Chelyabinsk-65, Russia
    AM". Rev. EJlerv EJlwOIt. 1993. /8:507-28 Copyrjgh' @ /993 by Annual Rrnewl III". AU righlS relerved RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AT CHELYABINSK-65, RUSSIA Thomas B. Cochran, Robert Standish Norris, and Kristen L. Suokko Natural Rewurces Defense Council, Washington. DC KEY WORDS:radioactive waste. Mayak, nuclear accidents. Lake Kamchay. plutonium production INTRODUcnON _. 507 WASTE MANAGEMF.NI ACTlVmES _ _ _ _ . 510 Discharge of Waste Into the Tecba River _ . Sit Lake Karaehay (Reservoir 9) .... _ . 515 Lake Slame Bololo (Old Swamp; Reservoir 17) _ '. 519' WilSIe Explosion in 1951 ..•.............. _ . 520 WASTE MANAGEMENT TODAY • . • . • . • . 522 Storage ~ .Hi~LeveI Waste Tanks " _ _ '. 523 Waste VltnficatlOll ...•......•.............•••...•.•...... 523 Solid Waste Burial . • . 524 CONCLUSION _ . 52S APPENDIX-BASIC UNITS OF IONIZING RADIATION _ . • . 5~ Fifteen k.ilometerseast of the city of Kyshtym, on the east side of the Ural Mountains, sits the once secret complex of Chelyabinsk-65. home of the Mayak Chemical Combine. The Mayak facility housed the fonner Soviet Union's first industrial nuclear reactors, and produced the material for the country's first atomic bomb beginning in 1948. Over four decades of nuclear materials production and processing, the Mayak.facility discharged effluents containing more than 123 million curies (MCi) of long-lived radioactivity into an open storage lake and other sites, from which some millions have leaked into the general environment. Although the facility has adopted a number of new procedures for managing the waste, serious problems remain. 507 Chelyabinsk-65 did not receive foreign visitors, and was not on maps of the Soviet Union until 1989. Prior to about 1990, it was called Cbelyabinsk- 40.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry
    Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry – Final Report June 2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. For EISPC and NARUC Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry Study 5: Assessment of the Location of New Nuclear and Uprating Existing Nuclear Whitepaper 5: Consideration of other Incentives/Disincentives for Development of Nuclear Power prepared for Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803 781.270.0101 www.navigant.com Table of Contents Forward ....................................................................................................................................... ix Basic Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Early Years – (1946-1957) ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.1 Shippingport ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.1.2 Power Reactor Demonstration Program ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Disaster at Mayak in 1957
    Nuclear disaster at Mayak in 1957 Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen independent consultant member of the Nuclear Consulting Group July 2019 [email protected] Note In this document the references are coded by Q-numbers (e.g. Q6). Each reference has a unique number in this coding system, which is consistently used throughout all publications by the author. In the list at the back of the document the references are sorted by Q-number. The resulting sequence is not necessarily the same order in which the references appear in the text. m13mayakdisaster20190713 1 Mayak (Kyshtym) The disaster at Mayak, also known as the Kyshtym disaster, has been kept secret for decades and is still being concealed, details are scarce. A quote from [Greenpeace 2007a] Q721 reads: The Mayak nuclear plant in the Southern Urals was one of the dark secrets of the cold war. It was the Soviet Union’s primary nuclear complex, a massive set of plutonium production reactors, fuel production facilities, and reprocessing and waste storage buildings. In 1957 a storage tank with highly radioactive liquid waste exploded. More than half the amount of radioactive waste released by the accident in Chernobyl was blasted into the atmosphere. A few villagers were evacuated, but most were not. 217 towns and at least 272,000 people were exposed to chronic levels of radiation. The plume was 50 kilometers wide and 1,000 kilometers long. But the explosion wasn’t the only incident of contamination. Between 1948 and 1956 radioactive waste was poured straight into the Techa River, the source of drinking water for many villages.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Russian Bomb from Stalin to Yeltsin
    MAKING THE RUSSIAN BOMB FROM STALIN TO YELTSIN by Thomas B. Cochran Robert S. Norris and Oleg A. Bukharin A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Westview Press Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford Copyright Natural Resources Defense Council © 1995 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................. List of Tables ................................................... Preface and Acknowledgements ..................................... CHAPTER ONE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SOVIET BOMB Russian and Soviet Nuclear Physics ............................... Towards the Atomic Bomb .......................................... Diverted by War ............................................. Full Speed Ahead ............................................ Establishment of the Test Site and the First Test ................ The Role of Espionage ............................................ Thermonuclear Weapons Developments ............................... Was Joe-4 a Hydrogen Bomb? .................................. Testing the Third Idea ...................................... Stalin's Death and the Reorganization of the Bomb Program ........ CHAPTER TWO AN OVERVIEW OF THE STOCKPILE AND COMPLEX The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile .................................... Ministry of Atomic Energy ........................................ The Nuclear Weapons Complex ...................................... Nuclear Weapon Design Laboratories ............................... Arzamas-16 .................................................. Chelyabinsk-70
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Anomalies of Nuclear Energy
    OPERATIONAL ANOMALIES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY Contributing authors: Béla Munkácsy, PhD Teacher, MSc in Environmental Management, PhD in Energy Geography. Assistant Professor at the Department of Environmental and Landscape Geography, Eötvös Loránd University; Consultant at Energiaklub, Member of the Board of the International Network for Sustainable Energy. He studied sustainable energy planning at the University of Oslo. Dorottya Egres Certified expert of communication and media. She is an assistant lecturer at the Department of Philosophy and History of Science at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, project manager at Energiaklub. Her main field of research and the topic of her doctoral dissertation is the Hungarian discourse about nuclear energy. She is a member of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis. Professional reviewer: Martina Méhes Managing and Policy Director of Energiaklub. Certified agricultural environmental management engineer, specialized in renewable energy. She studied nuclear energy engineering at the Technical Department of Szent Istvan University. Translation: Zsuzsanna Lestál ISBN 978-615-5052-15-6 The study can also be downloaded from the website of Energiaklub Climate Policy Institute and Applied Communications Association: www.energiaklub.hu. Published by ENERGIAKLUB in 2021 © All rights reserved. To communicate the data, please use the “Name it! - Don't sell it! "Don't change it!" license. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War
    The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War Thomas Rabl In the late afternoon of 29 September 1957, residents of the Chelyabinsk district in the Southern Urals noticed unusual bluish-violet colors in the sky. The regional press speculated about polar lights appearing exceptionally far south. However, within a few days, a slew of government activity became evident around the military area that housed the nuclear facility “Mayak.” Peasants were required to slaughter their livestock, bury their crops and plow their farmland. More than 20 villages, comprising over 11,000 people, were evacuated and completely demolished. No official statement was given about any of these orders, but everybody could figure out for themselves that a major accident had happened at “Mayak.” Map of the East Urals Radioactive Trace (EURT), the area contaminated by the Kyshtym disaster 2010 Jan Rieke View source . This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License . Source URL: http://www.environmentandsociety.org/node/4967 Print date: 14 November 2018 11:31:12 Rabl, Thomas. "The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War." Arcadia ( 2012), no. 20. “Mayak” was established in 1946, and by 1949 it had produced the first Soviet nuclear bomb. After this initial success, Moscow demanded ever more bombs, and allowed ever less time to make them. “Mayak” delivered. But it paid a price. As a result of disregarding basic safety standards, 17,245 workers received radiation overdoses between 1948 and 1958. Dumping of radioactive waste into the nearby river from 1949 to 1952 caused several breakouts of radiation sickness in villages downstream.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Learnt from Nuclear Disasters - Health Hazards & Its Prevention
    MOJ Public Health Review Article Open Access Lesson learnt from nuclear disasters - health hazards & its prevention Abstract Volume 9 Issue 4 - 2020 The United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO) defines a disaster as “a M. Athar Ansari serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, Department of Community Medicine, Aligarh Muslim University, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its India resources.” M. Athar Ansari, Community Medicine, A number of nuclear disasters have occurred in the world which includes the worst disaster Correspondence: Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, Tel +919897267621, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima tragedy. Email Acute Radiation Syndrome also is known as radiation sickness caused by a high dose of December 31, 2019 | August 07, 2020 penetrating radiation. The three classic ARS Syndromes are: Bone Marrow Syndrome, Received: Published: Gastrointestinal (GI) Syndrome and Cardiovascular (CV)/ Central Nervous System (CNS) syndrome. Survival is extremely unlikely in the case of GI syndrome whereas death may occur within two weeks in the case of cardiovascular syndrome. Human beings are badly affected by head to toe by radiation exposure. There may be f hair loss in clumps, Damage to nerve cells leading to seizures, thyroid carcinoma, increased long term risk for leukemia, lymphoma, sterility, and radiation burn, etc. The best prevention of radiation sickness is to minimize the exposure dose. This can be achieved by increasing the distance from the radiation source and early evacuation. We have to find out and respect the regulations regarding production, transport, handling and storage of radioactive substances.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Anthropogenic Hazards Causes, Protection, Control and Prevention
    International OPEN ACCESS Journal Of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) Nuclear Anthropogenic Hazards Causes, Protection, Control and Prevention S. Ravindran ABSTRACT: Anthropogenic hazards are major adverse events resulting from Nuclear radiation, Chemical warfare, Electronic waste, Pollution, Solid Waste etc. Anthropogenic hazards can cause loss of life or damage to properties and typically leaves some economic damage in its wake, the severity of which depends on the affected population’s resilience or ability to recover and also on the infrastructure available. Hence it is necessary to study the causes of anthropogenic hazards in detail and plan for control, prevent the disaster and improve resilience among people to face challenge for effective mitigation process. Here the study of Nuclear Anthropogenic hazards in detail and various method of prevention is taken up for study and benefit the people I. INTRODUCTION Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt." The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed in 1954. It has also been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities. Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted.
    [Show full text]