Paper detail

Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents & Accidents

We provide, and perform a risk theoretic statistical analysis of, a dataset that is 75 percent larger than the previous best dataset on nuclear incidents and accidents, comparing three measures of severity: INES (International Nuclear Event Scale), radiation released, and damage dollar losses. The annual rate of nuclear accidents, with size above 20 Million US$, per plant, decreased from the 1950s until dropping significantly after Chernobyl (April, 1986). The rate is now roughly stable at 0.002 to 0.003, i.e., around 1 event per year across the current fleet. The distribution of damage values changed after Three Mile Island (TMI; March, 1979), where moderate damages were suppressed but the tail became very heavy, being described by a Pareto distribution with tail index 0.55. Further, there is a runaway disaster regime, associated with the "dragon-king" phenomenon, amplifying the risk of extreme damage. In fact, the damage of the largest event (Fukushima; March, 2011) is equal to 60 percent of the total damage of all 174 accidents in our database since 1946. In dollar losses we compute a 50% chance that (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs in the next 50 years, (ii) a Chernobyl event (or larger) occurs in the next 27 years and (iii) a TMI event (or larger) occurs in the next 10 years. Finally, we find that the INES scale is inconsistent. To be consistent with damage, the Fukushima disaster would need to have an INES level of 11, rather than the maximum of 7.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.