Towards Resilience to Nuclear Accidents:Financing Nuclear Liabilities via Catastrophe Risk Bonds

In light of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, recent discussion has focused on finding the best nuclear storage options, maximizing the oversight power of global institutions, and strengthening safety measures. In addition to these, the development of dependable liability coverage that can be tapped in an emergency is also needed and should be considered thoughtfully. To succeed, financing is essential using special-purpose instruments from the global bond market, which is as big as US$175 trillion. Thus, in this paper, for the first time, a two-coverage-type trigger nuclear catastrophe (N-CAT) risk bond for potentially supplementing the covering of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) beyond the coverage per the Price Anderson Act as amended, and potentially other plants are proposed and designed worldwide. The N-CAT peril is categorized by three risk layers: incident, accident, and major accident. The pricing formula is derived by using a semi-Markovian dependence structure in continuous time. A numerical application illustrates the main findings of the paper.</jats:p

Uncertainties in the Anti-neutrino Production at Nuclear Reactors

Anti-neutrino emission rates from nuclear reactors are determined from thermal power measurements and fission rate calculations. The uncertainties in these quantities for commercial power plants and their impact on the calculated interaction rates in electron anti-neutrino detectors is examined. We discuss reactor-to-reactor correlations between the leading uncertainties and their relevance to reactor anti-neutrino experiments.Comment: Submitted to Phys Rev

The Radiation Issue in Cardiology: the time for action is now

The "radiation issue" is the need to consider possible deterministic effects (e.g., skin injuries) and long-term cancer risks due to ionizing radiation in the risk-benefit assessment of diagnostic or therapeutic testing. Although there are currently no data showing that high-dose medical studies have actually increased the incidence of cancer, the "linear-no threshold" model in radioprotection assumes that no safe dose exists; all doses add up in determining cancer risks; and the risk increases linearly with increasing radiation dose. The possibility of deterministic effects should also be considered when skin or lens doses may be over the threshold. Cardiologists have a special mission to avoid unjustified or non-optimized use of radiation, since they are responsible for 45% of the entire cumulative effective dose of 3.0 mSv (similar to the radiological risk of 150 chest x-rays) per head per year to the US population from all medical sources except radiotherapy. In addition, interventional cardiologists have an exposure per head per year two to three times higher than that of radiologists. The most active and experienced interventional cardiologists in high volume cath labs have an annual exposure equivalent to around 5 mSv per head and a professional lifetime attributable to excess cancer risk on the order of magnitude of 1 in 100. Cardiologists are the contemporary radiologists but sometimes imperfectly aware of the radiological dose of the examination they prescribe or practice, which can range from the equivalent of 1-60 mSv around a reference dose average of 10-15 mSv for a percutaneous coronary intervention, a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, a multi-detector coronary angiography, or a myocardial perfusion imaging scintigraphy. A good cardiologist cannot be afraid of life-saving radiation, but must be afraid of radiation unawareness and negligence

World 1984

Does not include United States. Indexes stations.Color;Scale not given