we are in a great debate over the cost of regulation. society is willing to invest to ensure workers will come home safely. our challenge is how to make this more affected. in the past 40 years, it has changed dramatically. we struggle to ensure that programs are recognized and emulated while trying to improve the tools we have to address hazards and change employers who still endanger workers. it is not easy. osha standards have saved countless lives over the last decades. the rulemaking process becomes slower. old hazards remain an adequately addressed. some of our chemical standards are antiquated.

new problems like ergonomic hazards, infectious diseases, a workplace violence bros. osha fines are too low to have much impact on business. they are set by congress. we have about 2200 inspectors at that address hazards in a million american workplaces. too many workers, including millions of public employees, remained in the dark without legal rights. the creators of the osha law intended to ensure that workers have an important role in ensuring a safe working conditions. sadly, the whistle-blower part of a lot is old. many workers do not know about the hazards they face and the rights that they have. to many do not tell safe raising the issue in the workplace. we are working close with organizations of labor and business and communities and

take based groups to help us find ways to better protect workers. i am very excited about some of the new approaches we are developing. osha is embarking on a new way of addressing health in the workplace. it is a systematic process where all employers will be able to identify the hazards in their workplaces and find a way to fix those hazards before workers are hurt. it is not really new at all. a ship burst issued guidelines in 1989 -- a shot issued guidelines in 1989. -- osha first issued guidelines in 1989. health and safety programs have been a court report net for our voluntary protection program that recognizes programs that excel. in the spirit of keeping

workers safe and celebrating our 40th anniversary, i am honored that we are joined by some of the leading experts in workplace safety and health along with two workers on the lines of workplace safety. i want to take this moment to remind everyone that april 28 is were court vote -- worker memorial day. it is dedicated to the memory of workers who lost their lives on the job. the department of labor will establish a memorial to these workers. they will plant a tree on the grounds -- grounds of a government building. it will be a permanent reminder of the workers that we have lost. we must commit ourselves to address the many challenges still facing us today, to rededicate ourselves to the original promise of the occupational safety and health act, to ensure that every worker in the united states comes home safely to their family after a day's work. we are urged to meet these challenges and achieve the goals

that all americans strive for. safe workplaces and a stronger america. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are now going to transition to our first panel discussion. watch your step. david and john did a great job of setting the context. i am just going to introduce catty and mike and get started with some questions. after about 20 minutes, we will open it up to the audience. kathy has worked in nursing since 1979. she is currently a staff nurse in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. she served on the executive board of va health care

pennsylvania. she is chair of the mayor's alliance. her organization represents more than 1 million health care workers in the united states. mike works at goodyear tire and rubber in topeka, kansas. he was our 25 years ago as a pipefitter. he has served in various safety and health position including his current position as the safety and health coordinator for the united steelworkers at goodyear. he spent 14 years at goodyear as a first responders, medical officer, and emergency medical technician. he also has conducted numerous trainings on osha standards and workplace health and safety. you., let's start with many people probably do not think of health care workers

when they think of osha. in fact, you do face dangers on your job. talk a little bit about some of the dangers that health care workers face, your personal experiences, and how osha has helped over the years. >> health care workers work into disease invested workplaces. it is excited -- it is a dangerous place to go to work. since 1979, things have changed so much in the workplace because of safety. early in my career, a nurse was inadvertently struck with the needle and contracted hepatitis. she died of hepatitis. 17,000 of my colleagues in the 1980's contracted hepatitis before blood borne pathogens.

cents a bushel has instituted safety regulations -- since osha has instituted safety regulations, our workers get to work everyday and do not think about it. the department make sure that workers were required to get vaccinations so health care workers did not have to worry about hepatitis. today i get to work and none of light colleagues get -- not of my colleagues have hepatitis because of body fluids. >> you also experienced workplace tragedy. maybe you can start by telling us about what got you interested in worker health and safety. describes of the changes you have seen it. >> i was hired in as a pipefitter at goodyear.

i worked for this gentleman who did a lot of on-the-job training. he always told me when he heard the alarm system go off in the plant, make sure you respond with your tools because you may have to pull out a check out the worker. about two weeks after i was hired, an alarm went off. the first responders pulled this man and other the machine that had been crushed by a part of the machine. they were doing cpr on him. i was 25-years old. i had no idea what to do or what actions i should take. i just sat back and was in all of what was going on. it was a tragedy. later on, come to find out it was a newly designed machine and he was not completely jane on

net -- trained on it. we fight the same battle every day. simple things such as machine guarding. my father -- i am third- generation at goodyear -- my father was active in the union as well. he used to build tires. he was a heavy smoker. he smoked two or three packs of cigarettes a day. he had a lighter he always carried in his pocket. when he was a tire builder, he would bite the lighter fluid that you put in. he would put been seen in the lighter in use it to light the cigarette. he always carried a letter in his pocket. he developed a tumor based upon that. when osha it came up with t benzine law, it had a big impact

on the changes in what osha it does. we have a lot of room to go. >> do you want to add something? >> one of the other things i think has been so important for health care workers is needle sticks. neil assistance have changed not just nurses allies, but imagine the environmental service worker or laundry worker who finds at a needle in beds or linens. there is a time when we carry our needles on a straight down the hall to a room. now in every single room there are legal boxes so we can get rid of syringes that may be contaminated. back in the day, there was a time when we did not wear gloves. that was for surgery and very special cases.

imagine that now. at the time, there would be scared to death. now they are scared to death if you do not have gloves on. there are things we take for granted every day in health care. i am acted in the union at the hospital. my hostile does the right thing. we have a health and safety committee. having a union and having that power and having an employer like mind who is so committed to having a state hospital is imported. safe needles and wearing gloves -- those precautions have saved lives. >> david, we heard mention of the standards. they seem obvious in retrospect. very common sense. but they are actually challenges in getting these done.

>> that is almost always the case. when we enact standards, there are always some employers that say it will cost too much money or is not necessary. every standard has that history. dentists said that we were playing a tooth fairy because you could not give teeth back to little kids. you cannot wear masks because it will scare the kids off. can you imagine that that was the case? we created a new normal. there's a basic plastic founded in the 1970's that were carcinogenic.

the industry said it would cost over $1 million. the industry figured out that by enclosing the processes, they actually saved money. it made the industry more competitive. of course these are closed systems. getting there is always a great struggle. >> what lessons do you take on that as you try to move forward? >> we need the support of the public. we really need to make people look at the evidence. the studies showed very clearly that these laws save lives. >> you mentioned that we still have a ways to go. maybe you could talk a little bit about some of the challenges that we still face on worker health and safety.

>> first of all, i was at organized labor as a contractor. the thing that i see in my years of teaching and going out to the general public is that a lot of the workers do not have a voice. they do not have a voice in what their rights are. david even said earlier that the osh act is kind of week. we just do not have enough education for the workers out there to know what their rights are or how to utilize their rights without fear of being disciplined or distort or something like that. we need to give those workers a strength and let them be a voice and some time of structure said they can say they are part of the safety committee.

i am part of this process to improve mire workplace. that is what we need. >> kathy, what are some of the challenges that still remain as of the things that need to be done? >> we alluded to ergonomics and injuries. it is still significant. working collectively in that arena would definitely be imported. airborne or a caution. we need to have some stronger standards on airborne pathogens and protection. what i think is very important is workplace violence. health care workers work in nursing homes, prisons, mental health institutions, they are working out in the communities. i think a major focus on workplace violence -- people get mad when their families or sick. we have an educated public. it is important.

figure out what to do and working with our unions together are very important things i would look forward to. >> david, i in your introduction you mentioned that you are working on workplace injury and illness standards. how would a standard like that help situations? >> pochette has a standard for everything. there are eight huge range of potential hazards in the workplace. you have to do certain things that will prevent injuries. most responsible employers go beyond the standards. you change the culture of the workplace. you look at work hazards and you address them. there are many employers that do

that now. what this standard will do is bring all employers to hire level where they assess their hazards and come up with a plan to address them. it will make a huge difference. it will reduce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. >> i think we are ready to open it up to the audience. questions from the audience? >> part of the vision about osha was to give workers more of a role in trying to implement and make workplace is safe. last week i was talking with construction workers and they were talking about how they were trying to develop iphone apps so that workers on construction sites to report violations right away. they were saying the biggest

problem to them once in terms of putting these powerful tools in workers' hands is that every state has a different regulations. it is tough to use the social media. what kind of tools with the changing internet is a ocean looking at to put more power into the workers' hands? >> we are looking exactly at that. there is potential for people to send us photographs saying here is what is hazardous and here's the documentation of it. for those of you who do not know, there are 21 states that have programs that cover private sector workers. they like to have their own osha program. they are basically the same. they are not really different. while they look the part of the

surface, there is no reason why any kind of worker could not use the same thing to get a local ocean. -- local osha. >> i happen to be looking back doing some historical research at the time the trying the workplace deaths are estimated to be 100 a day. that is terrible. but my question to you is, looking forward, your budget is cut by 18% for the rest of the year. what is that going to do to enforcement for the new program you're talking about? >> our budget has not been cut at all. the budget agreement that was reached two weeks ago was an across the board cut. like every other agency, we are

spending 2% or less. we are very pleased that in their wisdom the house and the senate recognized that the osha could not be cut. it was not cut. it is worth recognizing been -- that 100 years ago things were that much worse. the national fire protection association began about that time. there has been progress made. we celebrate that. we look at how we can improve it. >> other questions? yes? >> i am with bloomberg government. we were just completing a study.

one of the reduced of the 15 -- we reviewed the 15 states that had the program in place. we noticed a dramatic spike in inspections immediately following an accident. does a show at a plans to change their inspections in light of the implementation or adoption of the rule? >> we are looking at the enforcement issues in association with any new standards. we are opened for comment. we are a few years away from the completion of this rule. i think we'll have a very robust public discussion. how to make it work so it is not burdensome from -- for employers will really move the ball forward.

>> michael, you know me. i just sent my union advocate question create -- . tell me what difference you think your role as a full-time safety guides company-wide has made in the health and welfare of goodyear employees. >> that is a good question. over the years we have had a lot of tragedies. we have had strains and sprains, whatever. without worker involvement -- we have expertise on the floor. we are improving workplace design. we try to find out what a true cause of an accident is. giving the workers involved is

the position i have currently. we network with other factories to help reduce injuries in the workplace. >> i would be interested in your perspective as well, cathy. >> we have over 1 million health care workers in our union. we do not just advocate -- advocate for ourselves. we advocate for our people. the highest quality of care is what every mom and dad or child deserves. when they come to the hospital, they should not have an infection when they leave. they should be able to come in, had the treatment that they need, and lead. in that time, all the people who touch them should be as safe. i think that having the voice on the job -- i can stand up for you.

i know what to say. i knew where to look. there are more than 1 million who do not have the union that i have. walk up to my hospital and say, "let's work together on this." that bill is good. >> if hud is the interaction work between the union and management? >> it is an uncomfortable interaction. i think they do not want work -- do not want people to get hurt on the job. someone out there may be holding their feet to the fire or regulations are called into question. that is money well invested. they are safe. they leave the hospital without

infections. that is the difference. working together with management to have training and having a labour relations the say you must have training in areas like blood borne pathogens or ergonomics. we practice that in our hospital. we have a system every hospital should have. no units should be built without having an ergonomic work place. workplace injuries, back injuries especially -- i have 30 years of experience, but it takes experienced health care workers away from patients who need them. it is not ok. >> other questions? right here. >> i am with the teamsters. just to piggyback off of what you said with the ergonomics issue and the strains and sprains you mentioned, the you think that the standards will be resurrected anytime soon?

ipad eps workers -- i have ups workers. 99% of their injuries are ergonomic, sprains, strains, things like that. >> osha has no standards -- has no plans to seek ergonomic standards. we are concerned about ergonomics. we have issued guidelines for safe work practices. we are also using our enforcement ability. every employer is required to provide the workplace with recognized hazards. if you see a serious hazard, we issue a citation on that. >> other questions? one back here. ok.

>> thank you. i am bristol steam. i have a cultural workers who are ranked as having second or third most dangerous jobs in the united states. yet they are excluded from most of the osha safety standards. i wondered whether we could see any progress on removing that exclusion on farm workers and firm so the safety standards that osha has. >> osha has focused more on urban workers and workers in manufacturing and construction. that is something we are trying to address. we are working with other agencies like the epa. we do not issue regulations on pesticides. only the normal protection agency can do that. we've reached out to them and

are trying to figure out ways that farm workers get the protection they surely deserve. >> that will be our last question. thank you so much, kathy and mike. we are going to transition to our second panel. [applause] i am just going to go ahead and introduce our new panelists and then we will go on to "q&a". these are very accomplished people. the bias will be abbreviated. if you what is the people once, they will be on our website. this is the director of

occupational safety and health for the afl-cio. she has worked extensively on a wide range of route regulatory initiatives on the federal and state level and coordinated labor movement campaigns on a worker's right to know, our analysis, and other jobs safety issues. she has also served on numerous federal agencies and scientific advisory committees. she is the organizer of a worker's memorial day, if observed annually on april 28 to remember workers killed or injured on the job. this is the senior director of world wide embarkment health and safety at johnson and johnson. his responsibilities include global leadership of johnson and johnson occupational safety, industrial hygiene, ergonomics, and safety programs. his background includes over 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical and health care products industry, initially as a research scientist, now as a safety leader.

david is a professor of economics at the boston university school of management. he does industrial and labour relations and transparency policy. the is the author of three books. he previously worked as an adviser to the u.s. department of he also serves as media advisor on a number of issues across the globe. peg, let's start with you. the aflcio works closely with osha and pushes osha to do more. can you talk about the relationship that unions like yours have with the agency? >> well, we have a long history with this agency and with this law. it was the unions who fought for and got the osha law passed back

in 1970. since that time, i would say that we have been both a friend to the agency at many times and other times, as you said, pushing agency. when you look at the standards the agency has set over the years and the earlier panel talked about blood pathogens. all of that came because of the union's petition, some cases because we had to go to court. our history is one of pushing, pushing, pushing for stronger worker protections and fortunately over the many decades here there have been for the majority of times heads of the agency that were very committed to safety and health, going back to more -- under president ford.

we have had a good relationship but it has always been one of trying to push the agency to do the job because there were a lot of forces against that. we have had had a couple of times where we haven't had such a great relationship, unfortunately. during the most recent bush administration, they didn't really want to work with unions and there is actually a policy in place where the head of osha wasn't allowed to come and talk to the unions about safety and health. again, we work closely with them but i think our role is to hold the agency's feet to the fire, to keep reminding them what their job is, and that is to protect workers. >> a similar question to you, joe. how does johnson & johnson approach worker safety and how do you interact with osha? >> thank you. johnson & johnson has a long standing commitment to health and safety that is probably as old as the company and we are

celebrating our 125th anniversary this year. the values that we have as an organization are corrected in a document that we call our credo put together by the chairman of the company back in 19 h 3. his name $1943. his name was robert ward johnson. he had the title of brigadier general. so while osha has had a general duty cause for 40 years, johnson & johnson has had their cause for the past 80 years. that's what drives us for health and safety.

we have a systematic approach that looks to identify and control all health and safety risks. it involves management. it involves employee engagement and together we come up with a system that yields extraordinary results. so when dr. michaels talks about injury and illness prevention programs, this is something we think is spot-on in terms of the directions for standards, as well as for osha and we support them because we know what works at johnson & johnson. >> great. david weil. osha is often attacked for imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. how do you view these attacks and how would you describe the costs and benefits of what osha does? >> in public economics we talk a lot about the benefits and costs of any intervention.

and the statistics have already been stated but i think they have to be restated. john mentioned at the beginninging that the fatalities in 1970 around 14,000 a year and this past year, being only 4300. injury rates similarly dropping from close to 11 per 100 workers to 3.5, 3.6 this year. each of those implies huge benefits both to private sector organizations like johnson & johnson in terms of productivity and having people's lives preserved and the benefits that confers to businesses. but there is also a huge public benefit that goes beyond that related to the preservation of life and safety and all of the benefits to individuals and their families and the communities to that kind of production in the loss of life

and in injuries. so there is enormous benefits that we have to think about every time we reduce injury levels and fatality rates as much as that. i think there is a lot of evidence out there that can show a lot of that goes to osha. that osha has been responsible for a lot of that reduction. i think equally on the benefit side, i thought kathy in the first panel made a really important point in describing just the change how workplaces operate now versus 40 years ago or even 20 years ago, the standards and protocol and the expectations about health and safety have been transformed by the proverpbes osha even where it hasn't directly investigated. i think on the benefit side there is enormous evidence that we gained a lot. the cost side as david michaels was describing is usually the

side most subject to hyperbole when the standards are issued. the evidence has generally shown that the costs that are anticipated, even those that osha has estimated in advance of issuing standards are usually much smaller once those standards with put in place and that's because businesses are creative, that once they are required to do something, to try to do that in a cost-effective way. the vinyl chloride story that the assistant story described. there is a classic story, the cotton dust standard that was going to destroy the american textile industry and in fact, what it did is by reing exposures to dust, increased the productivity and the quality in american textile mills in 1980's and 1990's because of that. my sense of the evidence is that the benefits we receive from osha are much larger than i

think have been anticipated and the costs tend to be much smaller than anticipated. >> david michaels, we have talked a lot about osha's standards but osha had other ways that applies to worker health and safety. could you talk a little bit about what are some of those things? >> we have a variety of strategies and cools that we use. we know there that are -- tools that we use. there are many out there that don't have the resources to know how to protect their workers. i mentioned our on-site consultation program. we encourage employers who can't afford it to call for a free consultation. we also have cooperative programs with a full range of employers, small and large.

ensuring that workers are protected. those are companies across the country and a voluntary participation program. those workers become special government employees and they go out and help other employers address those problems as well. we have a website with a tremendous amount of information aimed mostly at workers and small plors. -- employers. we're working on a couple of new smart phone apps. people who have ideas, we welcome them as well. our objective is to have -- workplaces change before someone is hurt. >> and joe to follow up on that, you know, you have experienced this with osha and compliance assistance. what -- how does that work, what is the interaction like? >> we have had a long history of

collaborateing with osha and while we are very mindful of the fact that osha is a regulatory agency and has reached enforcement responsibility we look to build a strong relationship with osha because we feel as though we have a common in addition. i think wuven of the best examples is in 1989 we appointed our safety director to become the head of osha. other less notable collaborations but still very valuable were we worked with the folks in putting together guidelines for handling drugs. we used our pharmaceutical experts to help put those guidelines together. in 2003, we actually entered into a formal partnership with osha oneringo nomics.

we knew -- on ergonomics. we have it actually impacted a number of areas. i remember specifically the united postal service facility in rochester, new york, where we had our people go in and helped them to solve some of their ergonomics problems. we had a very strong and good history of collaboration with osha. and it works. >> the work that osha is doing and james is doing separately and together is an area of great concern to us. texting on the road. it has resulted in many fatalities. we are encouraging employers to follow the lead of johnson & johnson to ban texting while driving. we have been trying to promote that. a number of organizations are getting that message out.

>> and peg, unions are also part of this, working with osha and will business. you know, maybe you can talk a little bit about how you work in various partnerships to promote worker health and safety? >> i think first and foremost what unions do is bargain with employers. thats the whole role of the union, to represent the workers and deal with the work site. that really is the primary focus of unions addressing safety and health. as we heard from kathy and mike, osha has been helpful to them with its regulations. it has been helpful, sometimes very formal partnerships between employers, osha and the union. the steel workers have had a number of those partnerships as have had the auto workers. but there is a lot that goes on in safety and health that isn't directly something that osha is involved with. i think what is really ski the fact that it goes on, a lot of conscience key is the fact that that goes on, there are

regulations on the book and that's what is in place. the framework. the requirements and also the emphasis and the impetus on us to address this problem. there is a lot of work that goes on with the agency but i think what we have to remember is as david said, osha is a tiny agency. this is an agency that 40 years after the law was passed has 2300 people on staff nationally. it is smaller today than it was in 1980. there were more inspectors for osha back in 1980. that was its high points. this is not an agency which is out there in huge numbers and harassing employers. we don't report every year looking at osha inspections and the frequent si of inspections. so let's keep that in mind. so what unions are doing and

what employers are doing, the day in, day out, worker safety and helts, a lot of it is driven by osha but it doesn't all involve osha on on ongoing basis. >> david, wow have written about how do we -- you have written about how do we evaluate osha's performance? maybe you can talk a little bit about that. we have these infrequent inspections. how do we know we're getting what we want? >> well, i think it builds on what peg was just saying. that is osha will never have. you can double the size of osha and it is still going to be very unlikely that it is going to show up at any given workplace. and so what the effects of osha ultimately are its impact on spillovers and its impacts on sort of changing culture and the decision making people have about health and safety. its challenge is it has to affect a whole range of

employers. johnson & johnson has always been on the cutting edge and is developing new approaches to health and safety well before standards evolve, equally osha has to think about the other end of the plor spectrum. people dead set against adopting basic health and safety standards and practices. and so ultimately, if you're trying to gauge how does osha have an impact to change things, it is thinking how does it bring up particularly that the end of the spectrum that is not complying, that is resist tonight change, how do you move that up so you continue to support progressive businesses that are doing the right thing and kind of pushing envelope on new approaches to health and safety. that's how you have to think about a performance. >> another way to think about performance and that is what was talked about earler by david michaels.

it is basically setting the bar for where employers need to be. when you look at osha, where i think it has made a huge difference in setting the new norms of performance, so with wealth care with the blood born pathogen standard, the hazard and risk of hepatitis b and h.i.v. but until that time, there really wasn't a whole lot of regulation in health care so with what what came is not only a standard. it came in attention to safety and health in a capacity that began to be built in health care that wasn't there. there isn't a safety and health program standard that applies anywhere. but because of that one standard, it brought safety and health and the focus on safety which hasn't happened before. when we look at what has happened in many cases, it was a particular standard. they didn't just deal with

cotton dust, they dealt with other hazards in the sector. i think one of the challenges that we face now that you mentioned is that the regulatory process is so osified, it is so difficult to issue rules. osha hand issued -- the last major standard was the cranes and derek standard in 2010. we haven't had this bar setting or setting standards or new norms for a long time and one of the things that we have seen and we are quite concerned about and to get your sense of this, without those new nrms and with so much pressure and competitive pressures on employers they are not putting the same focus necessary loin safety and health frequently at a corporate level. driver is ending up reduced activity and resources being paid to safety and health.

>> it is a great point, peg. what i was thinking about in addition to standards are the interest to have n.g.o. community in terms of overall sustainability. at johnson & johnson we created a set of sustainability goals for 2015. health and safety are a part of those goals. one of the ideas i have for david going forward is that companies like johnson & johnson are concerned about environment health and safety in our supply chain. we will have the opportunity to influence what goes on with the tens of thousandsor small businesses that supply products and services to johnson & johnson. i think it is a nice complement to regulation. companies have an interest in ensuring health and safety in the supply chain and we can nfls that process. >> this -- -- influence that process.

>> this decision in the role-making process, in getting standards -- >> it is very osified. >> some of the -- this was actually first took lace on the federal regulatory agenda at the beginning of the bush administration. getting to a proposal and once we get through proposals, there will be numerous opportunities for public comments and this is -- our standard is 40 years old and actually requires using equipment that is no longer available and measuring approaches which no one no longer uses. about 500 standards for chemical exposure in the workplace. 470 of them are based on work. a list that was put together, a voluntary industry and it has been unchanged since then.

many were based on the 1940's and 1950's and it will take five or 10 years to change any standard and we can only do a handful at a time. it is a severe problem. we're looking for ways to address that. short of legislation. which is the only way we can really speed it up tremendously. we also have to think about -- there are tragic stories. we have a very strong standard to protect workers from suffocation in grain-handling facilities. people go into grain bins which are filled with a corn and the corn is caking and they are given the shovel to break it up and then what happens is the corn starts to move and you can be trapped in it and suffocate. last year was the highest number

of grain entrapments and fatalities since perdue university started keeping track of these. two teenagers, a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old were at their first day of work, they were not given any training or safety harntose pull them out to go in there and break up that corn and they perished. a third kid was able to get out a after that, we sent a letter to every grain-handling facility in the country. saying these are the hazards. he's are the rules. no question about this. we recently went into a grain entrapment situation. my letter was taped to the wall. fortunately the worker wasn't killed. we need to raise the standards for some employers and some just don't get it.

>> one of the things that i think is important to recognize as we celebrate 40 years of osha and the passions of the law, the law is 40 years old. this law has never been updated and there have been numerous attempts to do so. we haven't got therein. so you still have essentially a lou that was radical back in 1970 but it is pretty weak. particularly in the criminal panel sections over the osha act but they are the weaks of all the environmental and safety laws that are out there. unlimited to cases where there is a will full violation that results in the death of a worker. we looked at the record in 40 years of osha, we have only had 84 prosecutions turned

occupational safety and health act for death of workers. and in that time, we have had hundreds of thousands of workers die. last year, the e.p.a. i think had over 300 prosecutions or convictions under its law. so you have more prosecutions, more convictions in one year, half a year under e.p.a. than you have in osha's entire history. we really need to look at these laws and bring them up to date. there is no reason why the laws that protect workers are so much weaker than the laws that protect the environment. >> david, when just getting back to what david was saying about the standard-setting process, one of the problems that is often cited is the way the cost/benefit analysis is done for osha rules. how is a cost/benefit analysis

done? and you know, what are some of the assumptions, you know, that are built into a cost/benefit analysis? >> you want me to put everyone to sleep? i think the reality is the ideas behind the cost analysis make a lot of sense. you want to improve social welfare and make sure any intervention you do, the benefits outweigh the costs. the problem is the standard-setting process has become incredibly politicized and so even the evaluation of what are appropriate benefits and costs become the subject of great conflict and the fodder for essentially fighting out the battle whether you want to regulate in the first place or not. i think in terms of both the science and the economics of benefit costs, there is more and more agreement on what proper benefit cost analysis looks like.

one of the foremost thinkers on benefit cost analysis. there is ways to do it. i think the problem is separating out what sort of the right way to calculate benefits and costs from the politics surrounding it and i think that is where the difficulties, if standard setting process comes in. the other thing, the comments about both standard setting and legislation sort of set up, i think there is always this tension about changing law and improving standards versus saying how much can we do with the existing enforcement apparatus and the standards we have in place and i think one of the promising things in the last few years has been a real emphasis on looking at existing enforcement in outreach kinds of capabilities and resources that osha has, not to say that you don't want to do legislation.

you don't want to new standards but i think often the enforcement systems we have are not pushed as far as they can to improve conditions given what we have. i think there has been a hard look at penalty policies focusing on enforcement and the nature of outreach that is different in the last few years that i think are bearing some fruit. >> david you're starting to do more on enforcement. what are some of those things and what is the appropriate penalty when there is a violation? >> well, the penalties are set by congress and the maximum penl for a serious violation is $7,000 and we have often have investigations in fatality where the penalty is $2,000 or $4,000. reduced penalty for small

employers, a couple of other factors. we can't change the penalty structure in a major way but we can change the way we do enforcement. one of the things we're doing having -- if we find particular types of hazards that seriously endanger life at a facility, we will look at the other facilities. it is reasonable to think those are spectacular. we're looking at other agencies because we know bad actors in one area are bad actors in another area. we're also trying to public lissize our -- publicize our investigations. essentially, by putting employers on notice that one of the things that will happen to them is they will in the newspaper. we know that works because i've been to meetings where attorneys said osha is being very

aggressive with its press releases. i want to make sure i don't get one of those press release. it is very simple. obey your hazards. we're trying to be creative. we're a small agency. i tell people ps like when you're out in the desert and you see a mountain lion, you try look big. that's what we're trying to do. >> we're ready to take some questions from the audience. john? >> i would like to follow up on david's last comments and ask whether it may be -- whether using the procurement system in the federal government might be a more effective way to encourage good behavior by setting standards about what federal contractors ought to be doing in this regard and penalizing people that don't live up to those standards?

>> i certainly think so. we have looked at that. it is quite complex. we can expect to put -- the purchaser is the federal government, they certainly should do that. we're doing some investigations. a factory which produced some materials for the department of defense had a major explosion and some fatalities and we're looking at them. should a company like this still be able to produce materials for the federal government if they can't keep their workers safe? >> i think that is an excellent approach, one that we have advocated for sometime. not quite as robust as you have proposed but during the clinton administration and then the bush folks name and wiped out the -- came in and wiped out to requirements.

referenced a variety of laws that existed. prior to osha, we had the -- act which basically said as a federal government contractor you had to follow these standards and it was those standards that got pulled in. many of the initial standards that were adopted in 1971 and we still live

they cited about 5000 articles. there published previously in russia. most of these articles were published in peer review journals and the chernobyl booke. it includes information from the british literature, sweden, norway, france, the united states, and islamic languages. the big difference was the who

and at chernobyl form covered very little literature. it did not cover any of the slavic languages. they were limited in what they thought -- in what they found. they said we needed to forget about chernobyl. i think this is the difference. thank you. >> just to respond briefly to the comment. i was going to say something about the fire comment. there is some truth about what the comment hurts said. in the way -- a nuclear establishment is determined by its context. even before the very first test, they were afraid of lawsuits. he thought it would be property damage lawsuits in someone's window got blown out. i remember what he said in 1945. in this country, the nac was

afraid of interest -- investigations, of lawsuits, and a journalist. there was a lot of independents. there were whistle-blowers in the 1960's. they may have lost their jobs and had a difficult time i inside the establishment, but they did not lose their heads as they might have under stalin. that is one reason, i think, there is more of a safety culture and more of an idea of regulations. some of the atomic energy commission culture continues. i think there was an improvement in the commission that operated after three mile island. what you said is a relative statement. i do think to date that the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission is far too reluctant to talk about safety. its record of vigilance on

behalf of the american public is not very good. then there are plenty of examples like the recent inspector general paul st. report about self assessments and self reporting and so on. while i would not disagree with your relatives statement, i am not very sanguine that there is an adequate level of vigilance in the united states. >> i did my research on the chernobyl disaster in the ukraine. we've felt the lack of interest and some lack of support for the

program in the ukraine. i watched the chernobyl disaster very closely during my life. my son was born in the disaster area. i know how difficult it is to keep our children healthy after this. i work for the president of the ukraine and i dealt with the chernobyl disaster discrepancies. one of the results of the chernobyl disaster was published in 1994. my question is, we gave a very bad prognosis. you spoke about health issues. can you summarize it and give us a picture?

>> we will ask you to respond to that question. >> the health data in the area is terrible. we have learned that only -- according to the belarus government, only 20% of children are considered healthy in belarus. we are talking about genetic problems, heart disease, brain damage, -- it is a tragedy. to will be the artists and the teachers and the musicians in the future if 80% of the children are sick? now we are facing the third generation. >> i would like to add that i participated last november in

confidence in an organization. the department of special meteorological problems for russia. the question was is statistical approach is work? this is a good question. the big question about methods -- what i saw in might region is the illnesses among the population hits teenagers with

three times more illnesses than adults. we did not talk about the genetic defect. it was explained how difficult to published genetic information in peer review journals before the information came to the north to be used as an international -- it needed to be publicized, but it is very difficult for this research. >> i would just add to this -- when you think about this burden, the economic burden, the

psychological burden, the physical burden of all of this, the get japan. it took us years to figure out what that dose of reggie -- radiation was. we had to set off bombs in the data to figure out how much radiation people got. this is an entirely different situation where you have people getting on going radiation. you have psychological social factors. now we are looking at pesticides. what does the combination of these things? you think about the money that went into japan. millions and millions of dollars to do this. the ukrainian budget was a sixth -- a sixth was dealing with chernobyl for a while. the world has not stepped in like we did in japan and say, " let's figure this out."

again, that is the secrecy. that is the cover-up that is going on today. it is bigger than it has ever been if you look at it that way and you think about it. how much of this money is counted in to the cost of nuclear power today? you hear people in the nuclear industry is saying, "we have to add in the cost of the budget that went to the ukraine to be kilowatt hour." it is not done. this is part of the tragedy of all of this, frankly. it is going to happen again. >> there is a question in the front and then i will take two more in the back. then i think we should take a break. we will have a second panel and have additional time for questions and answers. please fill free. i know our speakers will be able to ask it of them in the second

panel as well. >> i am a social worker by trade. i am concerned about environmental health. my concern is for future generations. almost 50% of women have unplanned pregnancies. that means they are going off to visit a contaminated area and they do not know they are pregnant. we note that it will affect the brain of the children. perhaps prof. sherman could talk about this further. we have one out of 110 children with autism. we have an increase of alzheimer's. there is a wonderful book which stated what the problems are. the future is very bleak if no one has a brain to deal with it. >> i agree with you. probably the greatest concern

over the exposure to children is a brain damage. how are we going to survive as a society on this earth if our children are born with brain damage? we do know that the thyroid is a key to delivering a healthy child. >> i will start and end with this. if there were an experiment in the university, it would have been stopped long ago. this is a kroll, poisonous experiment that we are carrying out on our environment and ourselves. we are never going to know the end of its period in the news today about pesticides and measuring pesticide levels in pregnant women and finding out that their children at age 7 have lower i.q. s and had difficulty doing task. one -- what are the synergistic

effects of pesticides and radiation? the answers to these questions are we do not know other than they are not good. again, i would say this is a cruel, poisonous experiment we are carrying out on ourselves that needs to be stopped. >> could i add one thing? a famous ph.d. said that nuclear power was random murder. we do not know who is going to fall on, how old they are, or their status. >> i am had been working in belarus for the past 20 years. we will be commemorating chernobyl there next week.

my question is for dr. sherman. you have convincingly demand estimates of the long-term public health consequences. but of the lingering for many years. i am curious to know what your -- what the medical community will say it? it is the 25th anniversary and there was this tragedy at fukushima. folks are downplaying it. what is this still need to be an issue of public concern? what is your prognosis of what the international community will continue to do in this region for the years to come? >> go-ahead. it is a difficult question. >> one of these studies that

fascinated me in the book is that they've fallen 22 generations of bulls. they are little woodland creatures. they found genetic changes it stayed. they did not disappear and remain constant. i do not think we are going to produce better human beings or more competent or more functional human beings if we keep radiating them. >> part of your question was what can we expect of the medical community and the world in terms of helping belarus and ukraine. i think history is the best predictor of future behavior. that is an inadequate response at best. i worry about the new sarcophagus. a new sarcophagus is supposed to last 100 years. this one was supposed to last for 10 years. it is 25 years out. the new sarcophagus, we do not have the money to build it yet. the world economy as it is, are

we going to get the money? are the french going to pull out of this because they are not being paid? these are all factors into the future. this sarcophagus is only going to last 100 years. what will happen 100 years from now? are we going to build another few sarcophagus under this one -- over this one? i think it relates to your question. we are trying to manage the unmanageable. we do not want to create more unmanageable situations. the answer is we all have to work as hard as we can to abolish nuclear weapons from the world because we have to prevent nuclear war and it to move away from nuclear power because we are going to see more of these things. >> natalia is three hours

southeast of moscow. we have done quite a bit of work in that region. it is somewhat separate from the issue we're talking about today. and unbeknownst to most people, that neighboring region houses one of the world of the largest nerve agent chemical weapons stockpiles. we have been in that region for 15 years along with the u.s. government and the russian government and other global partners to safely destroy that stockpile. we had local help reach offices in the local village next to the stockpile. it was formally very top secret. when we opened at the office, this was probably 10 years ago. our russian colleagues said it

was fine if we talk about chemical weapons destruction. we all agreed we had to abolish chemical weapons. please do not talk about radiation and please do not bring in any geiger counters. there is still sensitivity about the accident and all of the man- made radiation. >> let's turn to the last question and then we will break for coffee. yes. >> i heard the german ambassador to give a speech on clean energy. nuclear power came up and he indicated he wanted to eliminate nuclear power in the nation by 2036. i wonder what the feelings of the panel is on this issue? that is a pretty long timetable to eliminate nuclear power. you have to come up with some other source to maintain the power you have at the moment it's not the general increase in population.

others say nuclear power is fairly safe and it is green energy. the recent events in japan clearly show it is not. >> are you talking about this country or globally? i have researched this country. i write the book "carbon free, nuclear-free." 58 years ago i did not think it could be done at reasonable cost. but i do think it can be done at reasonable cost. the cost of energy in this country is about eight or 9 cents per kilowatt hour. compressed air storage is about 3 cents. the cost of nuclear on the open market we cannot determine. assuming junk-bond financing, it would be somewhere between 12 cents and 20 cents. we know how to do it cheaper

than nuclear. the worst thing that can happen with a turbine already happened in north dakota the other day. a blade fell off. nobody was hurt. at worst, you could imagine a couple of people would be there and be hurt or killed. when it is over, it is over. pick up the pieces and move on. with nuclear power, you never pick up the pieces and move on. all of the opec countries have oil. we have even more similar than that. there is no reason not to do it. we just do not have the guts and vision although we talk about it all the time. in regard to germany, i would like to remind people this country is a trade deficit country. they are complaining about cheap labor in china. germany does not complain that much about cheap labor in china. they run to stay ahead of the technological race.

the export bmws to china and make a lot of money. as the chinese get richer, they do not want chinese cars. they really want a bmw. really, the germans and stalled more solar panels than anybody even though they have a cloudy and wet country, worse than seattle, for solar. partly, i think because they are determined to stay ahead of the technological race. and they are. we are worrying about whether we want to look at it. that is the problem. >> i think the other thing that we do not talk about -- we talk about land and other things -- is conservation and efficiency. if we could do that today, it would produce jobs and it would save 30% of the electricity we use. by 2020, that would eliminate the need for nuclear power

plants. conservation and efficiency. this has to become part of our mantra. >> the one thing i would like to add is how many armed guards at the scene around a solar panel? [laughter] we will never ever start -- stop using armed guards to guard nuclear waste and nuclear power plants. >> how many terrorists are thinking about destroying a solar panel? [laughter] >> exactly. think about that. >> let's take a coffee and tea break. we should be back in about 15 minutes in our seats. thank you. [applause]

>> my name is paul walker. i am with global green u.s. aid.

-- global graeen u.s.a. [unintelligible] i thank you all for sticking with the program. meetings in washington, d.c. can go for more than an hour and a half. the reward after work is a very nice reception hosted by the ukrainian embassy and the ambassador. thank you for doing that. we get three panelists on this program. dr. lyman is a senior staff scientist in washington, d.c.

he was president of the nuclear control institute, a washington- based organization. he under a doctorate in physics from cornell in 1992. eight focused on the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. in the middle of the table as thomas cochran. he is a senior scientist and holds a chair for nuclear policy at the national -- natural resources defense council. he served as director of the nuclear program until 2007. he initiated a series of joint nuclear weapons verification projects with the academy of sciences. he is a member of the department of energy nuclear energy research advisory committee.

he is on the fusion energy sciences advisory board. the t.m.i. public health advisory board. last but not least, sharon is a good friend and colleague. she served as a director and senior fellow for the center for science and international -- strategic and international security studies. i apologize. we all just take to the acronyms here. sharon was a senior associate in the nuclear non-proliferation program. from 2002 until 2007 she advised congress on weapons of mass destruction.

i thank you all for participating. you will each have about 15 minutes. then we will open it up for questions again. we will break around 6:00. then we will have a nice reception. >> i would like to thank the ambassador and paul walker for inviting us to discuss the lessons of chernobyl for nuclear energy policy today. the talk i was going to give up when we were invited, which was a week or two before the figures in the accident -- before the fukushima accident, it was almost identical. the fact is that the lessons of chernobyl and fukushima are quite similar except that the

lessons of chernobyl were more or less ignored for various reasons. as chernobyl receded from public memory and another accident of this magnitude did not occur, regulators, lawmakers, and even the public became complacent. the notion of the nuclear renaissance flourishing really came about. the idea that nuclear power was overstated. the reason why the u.s. and other countries ended their nuclear power grid programs in the 1980's were unjustified. the nuclear energy industry was able to read brand nuclear power as clean and safe. that was moving along at some deliberate speed until

fukushima ruin that the party. -- ruined the party. i have been reminding people that the type of the event that occurred at chernobyl is still a risk for western nuclear power plants and highlighting the laundry list of nuclear power safety. the response has then a collective yawn. people listen and simply conclude, "why should we believe you? we have not seen anything happening." 1 perceptions of risk in a vacuum, you tend to become complacent. fukushima has altered that conversation. there is a window of opportunity for making real change. if there is not the same

attention on nuclear safety, complacency will set in again. i was reminded of the bp oil spill and the fact that there is not a push in congress from representatives of the very regions that were affected by the spill to engage in offshore drilling. i just came from a conference in south carolina where we heard an elected representative from south carolina talking about how reassured he was that the response in congress to fukushima has been so muted that he is actually glad that there is not new concern in congress that could lead to real change. that is the mindset i am worried about. the pre-fukushima methodology we try to contest, there is a list

of miss. the first is that chernobyl could not happen here. even if it did, chernobyl was not so bad because it only killed 50 people right away and then, after work, the only detectable cancers were highly treatable thyroid cancers. this is something the nuclear institute here in the united states made a point of -- that thyroid cancer is not sinbad. the next part of the myth is that the next generation of nuclear power plants will be much safer than the current generation. in the aftermath of 9/11, there was concern about the potential of aircraft attacks or other type of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities. the industry maintain that these plants were hardened targets.

finally, the issue of nuclear waste, which has concerns because of its radio toxicity. nuclear waste can safely be recycled. it will somehow reduce the burden that nuclear waste puts on future generations and makes sustained growth of nuclear power feasible. post-fukushima, what are the myths? the first is that a fishing but could not happen here. the second is that it was not as bad as chernobyl. there were no early fatalities. it looks like the radiation releases or lower than some people claim. the figure in the japanese are using is roughly 10% of the iodine was released.

i would consider that significantly lower. the next myth that still persists is that the next generation of nuclear power plants will be safer, in fact, it is survived the events of fukushima. even if a worst-case accident occurred at a nuclear power plant in the united states, the u.s. is much better prepared than japan to mitigate that accident and prevent the worst consequences. that is also a myth. did your plants are hardened targets and to be protected against terrorist attacks. how do we deal with these ongoing myths? chernobyl can't happen here and i hope fukushima will settle

that question once the smoke clears. if you just look at the data and the analysis of white water reactors, it has always been known that there are certain types of severe accidental sequences that can lead to court damage and radiation leaks on the order of the radiation releases from chernobyl. that was from the nuclear regulatory commission back in 1989. in fact, there were certain aspects of chernobyl that made it potentially not as bad for certain populations as you might have with white water reactors. the circumstances of the accident caused the plant to rise much higher in the atmosphere than you might expect from a water reactor. that led the nuclear regulatory commission to lead into

relatively low doses rates. the fact that the plume when hired could reduce the acute radiation exposure before they were evacuated. the likelihood of a damage accident in the united states based on the nuclear industry body on a calculations and risk assessments -- nuclear populations and risk assessments -- the pipe break our current spontaneously , external events like fires, explosions, or earthquakes. if you also look not just when the reactor is operating, but when it shut down, that is very important. the risk when a reactor is shot

down is higher than when it is operating because when it is shut down, you take cooling equipment out of service for maintenance. be containment hatch might be open. there are a number of aspects that lead it to be more severe than when the reactor is operating. you have to take this kind of things into account. when you add them together, you find out that the total risk per year is about 1% per year that you will see a core damage in the united states. we think that is too high. the next generation of plants will have to strive to reduce that by a factor of 10 or more before you get into a range with the risk is acceptable. if you have core melt, it does not mean you have a large release of radioactive activity.

most western reactor designs at containment buildings that are designed to some extent to prevent releases of radiation during design basis accidents. these are accidents that are not typically as severe as what occurred at fukushima. in the event of a severe accident, some are calculated to be 1 to nearly 100% chance of failure. according to analysis of that containment design, if the court were to over heat, melt, and knelt to the bottom of the reactor, it could cause a melting of the containment liner within a matter of an hour or so and lead to the breach of the container. that likelihood is about 40%.

that has not happened at fukushima. there are varying accounts as to whether the core melted into the reactor. there was an explosion in the suppression pools, but it is not clear that it was within this type of scenario. that means that mishima is not as severe as the worst-case accident you can have. we sell at fukushima that sometimes you need to get regular activity from the containment. that in itself can result in significant radiological releases on the order of 10% of the volatile isotopes. now i will fast forward. i did a study back in 2004 looking at the indian point

nuclear power plant in the united states. it has the highest population density within 10 and 50 miles. in fact, it is the second- highest power plant in the entire world in regards to population. doing analysis using nuclear regulatory commission on computer models, you can estimate that even if you have a full evacuation of the 10-mile zone from the nuclear power plant, you would still potentially see more than 40,000 deaths from acute radiation syndrome and up to 500,000 deaths from long-term radiation exposure due in part to the fact that there is such a large population near the plant and where there are no provisions for emergency planning whatsoever. we are talking about new york

city. a lot of stuff here. with regards to new reactors, what you hear about westinghouse of wanting thousand, they could actually survived the thicker she not tie event. -- survive at the fukushima event. the ap1000, if you have a design-based accident, it might be able to operate for up to 72 hours. that is three days without having external power restored. after that, you have to help an external power restored where you cannot rebuild the gravity tank that provides the water to cool the core. when you hear the rest of these reactors are much safer, if you

look at what the nuclear energy institute said about the estimates of these reactors being safer, the calculated risk measurement of new reactors are likely to increase. what i left out there is as more information is learned about this design and further analysis is done, the rest will be closer to current plants. that was the case in 2009. a part of the industry is still portraying the rest as small. i would just like to address briefly security. no matter alsace a reactor is, a terrorist attack that is well planned can simulate a worst- case accident. the earthquake and the tsunami disabled be on-site and off site cooling systems at fukushima.

a well-placed explosive charge could disable the systems as firmly and as easily as the earthquake and tsunami did. that is also the case within aircraft attack. what is the outcome of this today? even after 9/11, the nuclear regulatory commissioner after a 10 year. -- after a 10-year period, upgraded some aspects of the security systems and the guard force. the actual performance of the guard force in the event of a terrorist attack does not seem to have improved to the extent that we would like. the nrc ran test where they used motte adversary teams to attack nuclear power plants to same if they could overcome the guard forces and disabled enough equipment to lead to a meltdown.

before september 11, it was known that there was about a 50% failure rate. 50% of the time this ever terrorist could overcome the guard force and cause the equipment to fail and cause a meltdown. after september 11 and after millions of dollars in upgrades and increased guard sizes, the nrc is still running this test. they found that it is out -- it is now about a 10% failure rate. i personally do not think that is a significant enough improvement. we obviously need more work there. this was the famous case of a power plant where a member of the security team was supposed to be on duty at the time. peach bottom is a mark i.

i will end it there and take your questions. [applause] >> thank you. now we would turn it over to dr. cochrane. -- we will turn it over to dr. cochrane. >> chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident in history. in the health physics profession, the way one measures the consequences, particularly in terms of excess cancers that are caused by an accident, is to first calculate the radiation dose to each individual that is

exposed. that is in units of sieberts. 100 rims equal one siebert. those units include corrections or non uniformity of exposure in the body because radioactivity concentrates in organs. then when you add up all of the dose for each of the exposed individuals, you typically refer to the collective effective dose. that is measured in [unintelligible] in the case of chernobyl, the united nations committee on the

affects of atomic radiation -- you may recall from one of dr. sherman's slides showed a chart of various estimates of health effects from chernobyl and sort of in the middle was 2006 in skewed reports. there has meant a more recent report -- 2008 -- that assesses the collective dose worldwide from chernobyl at about 380,000. to convert that into excess cancers or excess cancer fatalities, we need a risk factor. in the united states, most people would turn to the

national academies beer committee and their latest report, which was 2007. you can get into that fake document and find tables -- thick document and find tables that showed the risk of excess cancers per unit of collective dose. when you apply those to the 20008 elected those estimates, usa that chernobyl caused on the order of 40,000 excess cancers of which about half would be expected to be fatal. as you saw from dr. sherman's

chart, not everyone does this calculation the same. you get a move very wide disparity because of the very large differences in the estimated doses that the -- that you estimate the individuals receive. there is also some fairly wide disparity on the assumptions and the risk. it is a very -- in the slide we saw earlier, the crisis -- the consequences or 40 times higher. the numbers i gave you are bad enough. let's just stick with those. if you look at the fukushima accident, the japanese

authorities had been publishing the measured radiation -- external radiation around the site and given readings ever so many hours. we integrated all of those and subtracted out the natural background numbers. when you do that kind of calculation, at least through april 5, we were getting collective dose numbers that were 100 times lower than chernobyl and at 100 times or so higher than the three mile island accident. lots of uncertainty there.

you should not believe any of the precise numbers. it sort of puts its in terms of human health consequences in perspective to compare the three accidents. the estimates for the releases from fukushima had been on the order of one-tenth of the releases from chernobyl. the consequences were so much last from fukushima. in my judgment, it is because of the difference of the nature in the accidents and the population densities. in the case of fukushima, there

were three reactors that were believed that the core had partially melted. you can look back to the history of nuclear power and catalog everything where you have had some sort of severe failure or partial core melt. setting aside the wind scale, i set it aside only because it was not connected -- it was not producing power, it was producing plutonium for weapons. that is not a power reactor. let's put that aside. that leaves 12 reactors that have as severe fuel failure or partial-core melts.

that is in addition to the three at fukushima and chernobyl. you can set aside a few more if you wish. one of those was and the reactor in idaho -- was a reactor in idaho. it was designed to produce power. they shut it down and discarded that design. a second one you might discard if you wish would be the reactor experiment in california. it was actually connected to the grid, but it was a research reactor more or less. you can argue it was not a real commercial power reactor.

but one of the interesting things is if you look at -- there are 137 power reactors that have operated and been shot down and are no longer operating. roughly one out of 14 of those have experienced severe accidents. that is a large number. one and out of 14. one and out of 23 have actually been shut down permanently because of the partial core melting of the fuel. i would maintain the history to date on a global basis indicates the frequency of the type of the events that we saw at fukushima at chernobyl is too high and that these reactors

taken as a whole are not safe. date other ways you can sort of massage the data and present the data -- there have been582 nuclear power reactors that have operated. they have operated for about 14,400 reactor years. if you distort a few of these cases and just take the top 10, usa there is a one core melt it that every 1400 reactor years. out of 582 reactors, that is an average of wine every 2.5 years. although these things tend to come in bunches, particularly recently, the rate of severe

core melt has been on the average of one every 2.5 years. since three mile island, it is like one in eight years or so. again, if you take the entire world wide array of these reactors, the frequency of these events is too high. they are not safe. if you try to do it, the numbers look worse than if you take boiling water reactors. it looks a lot worse. i think one of the problems is that because the -- on a global basis, these reactors are not

safe. the nuclear industry should be paying for more attention to operating reactors on a global basis than new reactors in the united states. when it you look at the fact that there are 104 operating reactors in the u.s. and if you believe the safety culture in the united states is somewhat better on average than worldwide, which is probably true, you would conclude the next event is more likely to occur elsewhere than in the united states. it is going to be -- could have similar devastating effects. this argument that was raised earlier about -- that was

chernobyl. it was the old soviet union. we have different kinds of reactors. it cannot happen here, etc.. i would simply point out that fukushima had the releases on the order of one-tenth of chernobyl. it certainly would argue that you could have releases on the order of one-tenth of chernobyl again. then you look at the fact that the chernobyl and even fukushima were not in particularly highly populated areas relative to other reactors globally. in fact, i think the number of people evacuated from chernobyl

-- someone who knows better can correct me -- was on the order of 100,000 people. yet there are 22 reactors in the world whose population density within 30 kilometers is greater than 1 million people. more than 10 times. the health consequences of a fukushima-type accident with a much higher population density could have an impact comparable to chernobyl. in fact, i think the worst case in terms of population density within 30 kilometers would be something like 83 million people. not a good site particularly.

and in a country that you would not claim has a safety culture or anything comparable to that in the united states. i think the bottom line is that there is a significant risk of another chernobyl. it is more likely that it will occur outside the united states than inside. if the industry does not adjust that, they will not survive. -- does not address that, they will not survive. just one last thought -- the frequency of these events is, in my personal judgment, does not so high that you should shut all the reactors down immediately because then you'll basically

force or even as soon as you can bring alternative sources of power to bear, because you would in some sectors of the world, including the united states, could increase your use of coal. i would argue that coal is not -- making and electricity with -- making electricity with told is not equivalent to making electricity with nuclear power. we need to get out of both of those technologies as rapidly as we can reasonably introduced new renewable forms of energy and reduce the demand by demand- side management and improvement side management and improvement of