词条 | International Nuclear Event Scale | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
释义 |
The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) was introduced in 1990[1] by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to enable prompt communication of safety-significant information in case of nuclear accidents. The scale is intended to be logarithmic, similar to the moment magnitude scale that is used to describe the comparative magnitude of earthquakes. Each increasing level represents an accident approximately ten times as severe as the previous level. Compared to earthquakes, where the event intensity can be quantitatively evaluated, the level of severity of a man-made disaster, such as a nuclear accident, is more subject to interpretation. Because of the difficulty of interpreting, the INES level of an incident is assigned well after the incident occurs. Therefore, the scale is not intended to assist in disaster-aid deployment. DetailsA number of criteria and indicators are defined to assure coherent reporting of nuclear events by different official authorities. There are seven nonzero levels on the INES scale: three incident-levels and four accident-levels. There is also a level 0. The level on the scale is determined by the highest of three scores: off-site effects, on-site effects, and defence in depth degradation. {{clear}}
Out of scaleThere are also events of no safety relevance, characterized as "out of scale".[20] Examples:
CriticismDeficiencies in the existing INES have emerged through comparisons between the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which had severe and widespread consequences to humans and the environment, and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, which caused no fatalities and comparatively small (10%) release of radiological material into the environment. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was originally rated as INES 5, but then upgraded to INES 7 (the highest level) when the events of units 1, 2 and 3 were combined into a single event and the combined release of radiological material was the determining factor for the INES rating.[26] One study found that the INES scale of the IAEA is highly inconsistent, and the scores provided by the IAEA incomplete, with many events not having an INES rating. Further, the actual accident damage values do not reflect the INES scores. A quantifiable, continuous scale might be preferable to the INES, in the same way that the antiquated Mercalli scale for earthquake magnitudes was superseded by the continuous physically-based Richter scale.[27] The following arguments have been proposed: firstly, the scale is essentially a discrete qualitative ranking, not defined beyond event level 7. Secondly, it was designed as a public relations tool, not an objective scientific scale. Thirdly, its most serious shortcoming is that it conflates magnitude and intensity. An alternative nuclear accident magnitude scale (NAMS) was proposed by British nuclear safety expert David Smythe to address these issues.[28] Nuclear Accident Magnitude ScaleThe Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale (NAMS) is an alternative to INES, proposed by David Smythe in 2011 as a response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. There were some concerns that INES was used in a confusing manner, and NAMS was intended to address the perceived INES shortcomings. As Smythe pointed out, the INES scale ends at 7; a more severe accident than Fukushima in 2011 or Chernobyl in 1986 cannot be measured by that scale. In addition, it is not continuous, not allowing a fine-grained comparison of nuclear incidents and accidents. But then, the most pressing item identified by Smythe is that INES conflates magnitude with intensity; a distinction long made by seismologists to describe earthquakes. In that area, magnitude describes the physical energy released by an earthquake, while the intensity focuses on the effects of the earthquake. In analogy, a nuclear incident with a high magnitude (e.g. a core meltdown) may not result in an intense radioactive contamination, as the incident at the Swiss research reactor in Lucens shows – but yet it resides in INES category 5, together with the Windscale fire of 1957, which has caused significant contamination outside of the facility. DefinitionThe definition of the NAMS scale is: NAMS = log10(20 × R) with R being the radioactivity being released in terabecquerels, calculated as the equivalent dose of iodine-131. Furthermore, only the atmospheric release affecting the area outside the nuclear facility is considered for calculating the NAMS, giving a NAMS score of 0 to all incidents which do not affect the outside. The factor of 20 assures that both the INES and the NAMS scales reside in a similar range, aiding a comparison between accidents. An atmospheric release of any radioactivity will only occur in the INES categories 4 to 7, while NAMS does not have such a limitation. The NAMS scale does still not take into account the radioactive contamination of liquids such as an ocean, sea, river or groundwater pollution in proximity to any nuclear power plant. An estimation of its magnitude seems to be related to the problematic definition of a radiological equivalence between different type of involved isotopes and the variety of paths by which activity might eventually be ingested,[29] e.g. eating fish or through the food chain. See also{{Col-begin}}{{Col-2}}
Notes and references1. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Event_scale_revised_for_further_clarity_0510081.html |title=Event scale revised for further clarity |publisher=World-nuclear-news.org |date=6 October 2008 |accessdate=13 September 2010}} 2. ^{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341 | title=Japan: Nuclear crisis raised to Chernobyl level | accessdate=12 April 2011 | work=BBC News | date=12 April 2011}} 3. ^{{cite news|title=Japan's government downgrades its outlook for growth|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13058743|accessdate=13 April 2011 | work=BBC News|date=13 April 2011}} The death toll rose to over 15,000 with 8,206 missing and 5,363 injured the numbers are still rising. 4. ^{{cite news |url=http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/29/panel-government-told-people-to-keep-calm-while-mulling-tokyo-evacuation/ |title=Fukushima Report: Japan Urged Calm While It Mulled Tokyo Evacuation |author=Krista Mahr |date=29 February 2012 |work=Time }} 5. ^{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html | title=When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk| work=NY Times|date=13 April 2011 | accessdate=20 February 2019}} 6. ^{{cite web|title=Kyshtym disaster {{!}} Causes, Concealment, Revelation, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Kyshtym-disaster|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|accessdate=11 July 2018|language=en}} 7. ^1 2 {{cite web |url=http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-world-worst-nuclear-power-disasters-chernobyl/ |title=The world's worst nuclear power disasters |author= |date=7 October 2013 |work=Power Technology }} 8. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12789749 |title=Fukushima - disaster or distraction? |author=Richard Black |date=18 March 2011 |work= |publisher=BBC |accessdate=7 April 2011}} 9. ^{{cite web|last=Spiegelberg-Planer|first=Rejane|title=A Matter of Degree|url=https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull51-1/51102744649.pdf|work=IAEA Bulletin|publisher=IAEA|accessdate=24 May 2016}} 10. ^Canadian Nuclear Society (1989) The NRX Incident by Peter Jedicke 11. ^The Canadian Nuclear FAQ What are the details of the accident at Chalk River's NRX reactor in 1952? 12. ^{{cite journal | last=Webb | first=G A M | last2=Anderson | first2=R W | last3=Gaffney | first3=M J S | title=Classification of events with an off-site radiological impact at the Sellafield site between 1950 and 2000, using the International Nuclear Event Scale | journal=Journal of Radiological Protection | publisher=IOP | volume=26 | issue=1 | year=2006 | pages=33–49 | doi=10.1088/0952-4746/26/1/002 | pmid=16522943}} 13. ^Information on Japanese criticality accidents, 14. ^{{cite web|author=(ASN) - 5 April 2012|url=http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/index.php/English-version/News-releases/2012/Press-release-3-Information-on-Penly-NPP-event|title=ASN has decided to lift its emergency crisis organisation and has temporarily classified the event at the level 1|publisher=ASN|date=|accessdate=6 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120510120207/http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/index.php/English-version/News-releases/2012/Press-release-3-Information-on-Penly-NPP-event|archive-date=10 May 2012|dead-url=yes|df=dmy-all}} 15. ^{{cite web|author=(AFP) – 10 août 2009 |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDlQI2MpwzTvWT166NetwyFGPyiA |title=AFP: Incident "significatif" à la centrale nucléaire de Gravelines, dans le Nord |date= |accessdate=13 September 2010}} 16. ^[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/10/nuclearpower.pollution River use banned after French uranium leak | Environment]. The Guardian (2008-07-10). Retrieved on 2013-08-22. 17. ^News | Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration{{dead link|date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} 18. ^http://200.0.198.11/comunicados/18_12_2006.pdf{{dead link|date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} {{es icon}} 19. ^http://www.jaea.go.jp/02/press2005/p06021301/index.html {{ja icon}} 20. ^IAEA: "This event is rated as out of scale in accordance with Part I-1.3 of the 1998 Draft INES Users Manual, as it did not involve any possible radiological hazard and did not affect the safety layers.{{dead link|date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}" 21. ^ {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721162056/http://www.aerb.gov.in/t/annrpt/2002/chapter8.pdf |date=21 July 2011 }} 22. ^{{cite web|url=http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/view_contents.jsp |title=NRC: SECY-01-0071 – Expanded NRC Participation in the Use of the International Nuclear Event Scale |author= |authorlink= |date=25 April 2001 |format=PDF |website= |publisher=US Nuclear Regulatory Commission |page=8 |language= |quote= |accessdate=13 March 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101027084316/http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/view_contents.jsp |archivedate=27 October 2010 }} 23. ^{{cite web|url=http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/view_contents.jsp |title=SECY-01-0071-Attachment 5 - INES Reports, 1995-2000 |author= |authorlink= |date=25 April 2001 |format=PDF |website= |publisher=US Nuclear Regulatory Commission |page=1 |language= |quote= |accessdate=13 March 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101027084316/http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/view_contents.jsp |archivedate=27 October 2010 }} 24. ^Tornado sighting within protected area | Nuclear power in Europe. Climatesceptics.org. Retrieved on 2013-08-22. 25. ^Discovery of suspicious item in plant | Nuclear power in Europe. Climatesceptics.org. Retrieved on 2013-08-22. 26. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110426/full/472397a.html |title=Nuclear agency faces reform calls |author=Geoff Brumfiel |date=26 April 2011 |work=Nature }} 27. ^Spencer Wheatley, Benjamin Sovacool, and Didier Sornette [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.02380v1.pdf Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents & Accidents], Physics Society, 7 April 2015. 28. ^{{cite journal |title=An objective nuclear accident magnitude scale for quantification of severe and catastrophic events |author=David Smythe |date=12 December 2011 |journal=Physics Today |doi=10.1063/PT.4.0509}} 29. ^{{cite journal |first1=David |last1=Smythe |title=An objective nuclear accident magnitude scale for quantification of severe and catastrophic events |date=December 12, 2011 |language=en |journal=Physics Today |doi=10.1063/PT.4.0509 |doi-access=free |page=13}} External links
4 : Nuclear accidents and incidents|Civilian nuclear power accidents|Nuclear safety and security|Hazard scales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。