杏吧原创

THE scenario is scary enough. An attack by a terrorist group succeeds in draining the water from a pond full of nuclear waste somewhere in the US. It overheats, bursts into flames and belches out eight times as much radioactivity as the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

But is it realistic? The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear industry say it is not. But a group of critical scientists say it is, and their allegations are now being taken seriously enough for the country鈥檚 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to launch an investigation.

Bob Alvarez, a senior energy adviser to the Clinton administration, and colleagues argue that 99 large ponds full of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel at 65 sites across the US are vulnerable to attack. To save space, the fuel has been densely stacked, and this means it could heat up and catch fire within hours if the ponds emptied, they claim.

鈥淭he consequences could be significantly worse than Chernobyl,鈥� Alvarez told New 杏吧原创. 鈥淭he fuel ponds are the biggest terrorist risk in the US nuclear industry.鈥� He wants the government to spend $3 to $7 billion thinning out the fuel.

At an initial hearing before the NAS Board on Radioactive Waste Management in Washington DC last week, the nuclear industry insisted that its facilities were 鈥渉ighly resistant鈥� to a potential attack. And it was backed by the NRC, which accused Alvarez of exaggerating the risk.

The NRC鈥檚 Farouk Eltawila said that its assurances were based on unpublished research into the vulnerability of fuel ponds. 鈥淭he specific results are classified,鈥� he said, though a 鈥減ublic version鈥� was being prepared.