DOCSLIB.ORG

Harnessing Nuclear Energy: Health Risks Amit Bhasin*, Aparna Ahuja**

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harnessing Nuclear Energy: Health Risks Amit Bhasin*, Aparna Ahuja** INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SPECIALITIES 2011;2(1):46-53 Review Article Harnessing nuclear energy: health risks Amit Bhasin*, Aparna Ahuja** Abstract With increasing use of nuclear energy for various purposes all over the world, there is a growing debate over its ill-effects. Biological effects of radiation are dependent on the dose of radiation to which a person is exposed, dose rate of exposure, distance from radiation source, shielding and type of radiation and also type of cells and tissues being exposed with the most critically affected tissues in adults being the spermatocytes in the testis, haematopoietic precursor cells in the bone marrow and crypt cells in the intestines. Radiation injury can manifest early after the exposure, known as Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) or after a latent period of many months to years. Classic clinical syndromes associated with ARS include the Haematopoietic, Gastrointestinal, and Cerebrovascular (formerly known as cardiovascular and central nervous) syndromes with local radiation injury presenting as Cutaneous Syndrome (CS). Four phases may be identified in ARS- Prodromal Phase, Latent Phase, Stage of Manifest Illness and Death or Recovery Phase. Long term effects of exposure include cancers, genetic damage and cataracts. As controlled experiments regarding radiation exposure are neither feasible nor ethical, sources of information are the various disasters as the atomic bomb detonations in Japan (in the second world war), Chernobyl reactor explosion, Fukushima disaster (post-tsunami & following earthquake) in Japan and Mayapuri (Delhi, India) cobalt leak being some of them. Key words: Radiation injuries; health hazards; nuclear energy; radiation protection. Introduction Energy Agency (IAEA), contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon With increasing use of nuclear energy for generating emissions. Opponents, such as Greenpeace power, therapeutic medical purposes and also for International and NIRS, believe that nuclear power nuclear terrorism, there has been also an increase in poses many threats to people and the environment radiation accidents and hence there is need for [3,4]. These threats include the problems of adequate medical knowledge and response. The processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear debate is growing in importance as nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons governments everywhere are looking for ways to proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks maintain economic growth and reduce the effects of and environmental damage from uranium mining. global warming. But it now seems like the They also contend that reactors themselves are disadvantages are just too great. Nuclear power enormously complex machines where many things provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13–14% can and do go wrong, and there have been serious of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France and nuclear accidents [5,6] Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity [1,2]. Nuclear power is Determinants of radiation injury- The amount of controversial and there is an ongoing debate about radiation (i.e. radiation dose) absorbed by the the use of nuclear energy. Proponents, such as the patient's tissues is highly predictive of its biological World Nuclear Association and International Atomic effects. Such doses are defined as the amount of *Department of Medicine, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi **Department of Radiodiagnosis, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi Corresponding Author: Dr. Amit Bhasin, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi-110001. India Email: [email protected] Received : 05-05-2011 | Accepted : 12-05-2011 | Published Online : 17-05-2011 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0) Conflict of interest: None declared Source of funding: Nil 46 Indian Journal of Medical Specialities, Vol. 2, No.1, Jan - Jun 2011 Harnessing nuclear energy: health risks energy of ionising radiation deposited per unit of proliferation’. Rapidly dividing cells are more tissue mass at a specific point. Some amount of profoundly affected. Radiosensitivity varies directly exposure naturally occurs during certain medical with the ‘number of future divisions’. Long-lived imaging such as: a standard chest x-ray delivers a gonadal and haematopoietic stem cells fall into this dose of 6 to 11 mrem (0.06 to 0.11 mSv, 0.06 to 0.11 category. Radiosensitivity varies indirectly with the mGy). Interventional cardiologists working in a high- ‘degree of morphologic and functional volume catheterisation laboratory may have collar differentiation’. As an example, cells at the growth badge exposures exceeding 600 mrem (6 mSv) per plate in bone, which have not yet developed into year. A barium enema with 10 spot images delivers a bone or cartilage, are more sensitive than those of dose of approximately 0.7 rem (700 mrem, 7 mSv, 7 the diaphysis. Accordingly, growth arrest of bone is mGy). Similar doses (7-8 mSv) are delivered from a commonly seen after radiation exposure to the CT scan of the chest or a PET scan, while a combined growth plate in children, as may occur in the PET/CT scan is estimated to deliver a dose of 25 mSv treatment of malignancy. Variation in sensitivity to [7-9]. But these exposures are not hazardous. The radiation is an inherited genetic trait, although lowest radiation dose resulting in an observable candidate gene studies have been largely effect in man on bone marrow depression, with a unsuccessful in identifying the genetic variants resultant decrease in blood cell counts, is in the underlying most phenotypes [13,14]. While all range of 10-50 rem (100 to 500 mSv, 0.1 to 0.5 Gy). tissues composed of short-lived cells are directly The lowest total body dose at which the first deaths and indirectly affected by radiation, the most may be seen following exposure to ionising radiation critically affected tissues in adults include the is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 Gy. Depending upon the following: spermatocytes in the testis, type of support given, 50 percent of people exposed haematopoietic precursor cells in the bone marrow to a dose of 3 to 4 Gy will be expected to die of and crypt cells in the intestines. radiation-induced injury. There is virtually no Dose-dependent effects on various organs have also chance of survival following a total body exposure in been identified. They are of two types, excess of 10 to 12 Gy.The term “Lethal dose of deterministic and stochastic: A ‘deterministic’ radiation” has thus been defined — which is the dose effect is one in which the severity is determined by associated with death in 50 percent of those the dose (e.g. depression of blood counts). A dose similarly exposed (i.e., the LD 50). Depending on the threshold (i.e. a dose below which an effect is not incident, estimates for the LD 50 have ranged from seen) is characteristic of this effect. As an example, 1.4 Gy among atomic bomb survivors in Japan to 4.5 the threshold absorbed dose for a "deterministic Gy following uniform total-body exposure to effect" on bone marrow (0.5 Gy) is lower than that external photons [10,11]. for all other organs, except for the testis (0.15 Gy). A Several factors determine the lethality of ionising ‘stochastic’ effect represents an outcome for which radiation. These include: ‘Dose rate’ (doses the probability of occurrence (rather than severity) received over a shorter period of time cause more is determined by the dose. An example is radiation- damage), ‘Distance from the source’ (For point induced carcinogenesis, which occurs after a sources of radiation, the dose rate decreases as the prolonged and variable delay (latency) after square of the distance from the source {inverse exposure. These effects do not have an apparent square law}), ‘Shielding’ (Shielding can reduce threshold dose. The mechanisms underlying exposure, depending upon the type of radiation and deterministic and stochastic effects remain the material used, ‘Type of radiation’ (alpha unknown. Studies showing the impact of radiation particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper or a on gene function may shed light in this area. layer of skin, beta particles by a layer of clothing or less than one inch of a substance such as plastic, and Radiation injury gamma rays by inches to feet of concrete or less The damage caused by radiation exposure can be than one inch of lead) [12]. categorised according to whether the symptoms and Radiation exposure causes different degree of signs develop immediately or are delayed by months damage to various body structures depending upon or years. The ensuing damage results from the certain inherent properties of cells. Radiosensitivity sensitivity of cells to radiation, with the most varies directly with the ‘rate of cellular rapidly dividing cells being the most sensitive to the Indian Journal of Medical Specialities, Vol. 2, No.1, Jan - Jun 2011 47 Amit Bhasin and Aparna Ahuja acute effects of radiation. The inherent sensitivity victims of the Chernobyl accident, and was the main of these cells results in a constellation of clinical cause of death in more than half of lethal cases [15]. syndromes that occur within a predictable range of doses after a whole-body or significant partial-body There are four main phases to the ARS [16]- exposure. Symptoms arising from such exposures The Prodromal Phase usually occurs in the first 48 are referred to as radiation sickness or acute hours following exposure, but may develop up to six radiation syndrome (ARS). Classically, the threshold days after exposure. dose for ARS is a whole-body or significant partial- body irradiation of greater than 1 Gy delivered at a The Latent Phase is a short period characterised by relatively high dose rate. improvement of symptoms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Energy Impacts on Health - Michael H
    INTERACTIONS: ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT – Nuclear Energy Impacts on Health - Michael H. McGovern, Jaya Tiwari NUCLEAR ENERGY IMPACTS ON HEALTH Michael H. McGovern Senior Analyst, Center for Verification Research, USA Jaya Tiwari Phd Candidate, Old Dominion University, USA Keywords: Nuclear Energy, health effects, radiation, nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, dose-response, radiation standards, ICRP, NCRP… Contents 1. Nuclear Energy and Health: Categories of Risk 2. Why Does This Issue Matter: Important Trends and Issues 3. Sources of Health Impacts: Normal Operations and Accidents 4. Controlling Health Effects: International and National Regimes 5. Conclusion Acknowledgements Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary The first section of this article addresses the nature of health risks associated with the production of nuclear energy. While positive impacts are acknowledged, the focus is on the landscape of risks that give rise to detrimental impacts unique to this energy source, since these are a considerable source of controversy. In the second section, the article explores trends and issues that are likely to bring more attention to the issue of nuclear energy impacts on health. These trends include the growing use of nuclear energy in the developing world; the debate over nuclear energy’s potential role in limiting annual green house gas emissions; and a growing body of research on the health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation. In the thirdUNESCO section, the stages of the nuclear– EOLSS fuel cycle and the sources of potential impacts at each stage on both worker and public health are examined. The impacts on health of accidentsSAMPLE in reactors and other fuel CHAPTERS cycle facilities are also explored.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Joint Research Centre’S Assessment for the EU Taxonomy Regulation
    CRITICAL REVIEW TAXONOMY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY Critical Review of the Joint Research Centre’s Assessment for the EU Taxonomy Regulation Copyright Authors Gabriele Mraz Patricia Lorenz The authors want to thank Günter Wippel for his analysis of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) Report’s arguments on the uranium fuel chain. Download http://www.ecology.at/taxonomie_atom_2021.htm Vienna, June 2021 2 Content 1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5 Impacts of Ionizing Radiation on Human Health ............................................................................. 5 Impacts of Severe Accidents in NPP ................................................................................................ 5 Nuclear Safety and Security ............................................................................................................ 7 Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation ........................................................................................ 9 Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management – unsolved, even on paper ................................ 9 Uranium mining and milling .......................................................................................................... 12 Reprocessing spent fuel ................................................................................................................ 12 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Degradation of Light Water Reactor Fuel Rods in the Entire Fuel Cycle
    Corrosion Awareness Day Webinar 24.Apr.2020 Environmental Degradation of Light Water Reactor Fuel Rods in the Entire Fuel Cycle. Raul B. Rebak GE Research, Schenectady, NY Nuclear energy is clean and it is safe US Energy Information Administration 2 Worldwide use of nuclear energy to generate electricity 3 The fuel in a light water reactor Alloy for cladding Nominal Composition in mass • The fuel in a light water reactor are slender percent rods in a bundle. Zircaloy-2 or Zr + 1.2/1.7Sn + 0.07/0.20Fe + • Each rod is a tube filled with ceramic fuel R60802 0.05/0.15Cr + 0.03/0.08Ni (Fe+Cr+Ni = 0.18-0.38) • Currently the tube or cladding is a zircaloy alloy (metal) and the fuel is urania (ceramic) Zircaloy-4 or Zr + 1.2/1.7Sn + 0.18/0.24Fe + R60804 0.07/0.13Cr (Fe+Cr = 0.28-0.37) • The current pair zircaloy + urania was born ZIRLO Zr + 1Sn + 1Nb + 0.1Fe (Optimized in the late 1940s (unchanged for 70 years). Zirlo has 0.67Sn) • The fuel is partially changed in a reactor M5 Zr + 1Nb + 0.14O every ~2 years. E110 Zr + 1Nb E635 Zr + 1.2Sn + 1Nb + 0.35Fe Zr-2.5Nb or R60904 Zr + 2.4/2.8Nb 4 The fuel cycle 3 • The fuel rod first needs to 2 be manufactured, and assembled. • The design of the fuel rod is for the entire fuel cycle including final disposal or reprocessing. 1 4 5 Degradation of Zirconium alloys during reactor service 6 Uniform OD corrosion/oxidation of Zircaloy tube.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Law Bulletin No. 101
    Legal Affairs 2018 N uclear Law Bulletin No. 101 Volume 2018/2 NEA Legal Affairs Nuclear Law Bulletin No. 101 © OECD 2018 NEA No. 7427 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 36 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations of Nuclear Power As a Sustainable Energy Source
    Sustainability 2012, 4, 1173-1187; doi:10.3390/su4061173 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Review Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source Joshua M. Pearce Department of Materials Science & Engineering and Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 601 M&M Building, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-906-487-1466 Received: 13 April 2012; in revised form: 8 May 2012 / Accepted: 23 May 2012 / Published: 7 June 2012 Abstract: This paper provides a review and analysis of the challenges that nuclear power must overcome in order to be considered sustainable. The results make it clear that not only do innovative technical solutions need to be generated for the fundamental inherent environmental burdens of nuclear energy technology, but the nuclear industry must also address difficult issues of equity both in the present and for future generations. The results show that if the concept of just sustainability is applied to the nuclear energy sector a global large-scale sustainable nuclear energy system to replace fossil fuel combustion requires the following: (i) a radical improvement in greenhouse gas emissions intensity by improved technology and efficiency through the entire life cycle to prevent energy cannibalism during rapid growth; (ii) the elimination of nuclear insecurity to reduce the risks associated with nuclear power so that the free market can indemnify it without substantial public nuclear energy insurance subsidies; (iii) the elimination of radioactive waste at the end of life and minimization of environmental impact during mining and operations; and (iv) the nuclear industry must regain public trust or face obsolescence as a swarm of renewable energy technologies quickly improve both technical and economic performance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    6 The safety of the nuclear fuel cycle Despite popular misconceptions, nuclear power has an unmatched safety record relative to all base load fuels. It is far safer per megawatt hour generated than hydrocarbon fuels …1 … as a comparative figure, between 10 000 and 15 000 coal miners are killed per annum around the world. China contributes largely to that, with over 6 000 deaths per annum in their coal mines. In comparison, in power stations, coal-fired power stations since 1997 have killed 6 500 people; natural gas, 1 200 people; hydro, 4 000 and maybe more … the nuclear industry has killed 31 people.2 If you stood on the boundary of Lucas Heights for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and breathed it all in, you would get about the same [radiation] dose as flying from Sydney to Melbourne …3 The new millennium will see the increasing use of nuclear science and technology in every field of human endeavour. The immense benefits far outweigh the risks. And the risks of radiation must be assessed on a scientific basis and with informed realism … The manipulative assessment of nuclear risk must not deprive humanity of these immense benefits.4 1 Professor Leslie Kemeny, Exhibit no. 9, Power to the people, p. 2. 2 Mr Alan Eggers (Summit Resources Ltd), Transcript of Evidence, 3 November 2005, p. 3. 3 Dr Ron Cameron (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), Transcript of Evidence, 13 October 2005, p. 16. 4 Professor Leslie Kemeny, Exhibit no. 43, Pseudo-Science and Lost Opportunities, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources
    Nuclear Development ISBN 978-92-64-99122-4 Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources © OECD 2010 NEA No. 6861 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 32 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Nuclear Power Is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 33 (2008-2009) Issue 1 Symposium: Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of Carbon Emissions Article 2 in a Changing World October 2008 Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges Benjamin K. Sovacool Christopher Cooper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons Repository Citation Benjamin K. Sovacool and Christopher Cooper, Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges, 33 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 1 (2008), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol33/iss1/2 Copyright c 2008 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr NUCLEAR NONSENSE: WHY NUCLEAR POWER IS No ANSWER TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WORLD'S POST-KYOTO ENERGY CHALLENGES BENJAMIN K. SOVACOOL* & CHRISTOPHER COOPER** ABSTRACT Nuclear power plants are a poor choice for addressing energy challenges in a carbon-constrained, post-Kyoto world. Nuclear generators are prone to insolvable infrastructural, economic, social, and environ- mental problems. They face immense capital costs, rising uranium fuel prices, significant lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and irresolvable problems with reactor safety, waste storage, weapons proliferation, and vulnerability to attack. Renewable power generators, in contrast, reduce dependence on foreign sources of uranium and decentralize electricity * Dr. Benjamin K Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiationreimagined Strategic Communications Report Julia Trainor March 2018
    #RadiationReimagined Strategic Communications Report Julia Trainor March 2018 Table of Contents Problem and Opportunity Statement ……………………………………………………..…… 2 Situation Analysis …………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Key Publics …………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 The Campaign ………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Evaluation ……………………………………………………………………………………… 11 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 12 1 Problem and Opportunity Statement Radiation is defined as energy given off by matter in the form of rays or high-speed particles (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017). Scientists have been studying radiation since the late 18th century. Exposure to low levels of radiation- from 5,000 to 10,000 millirem- produces no harmful effects (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015). Despite the fear of ionizing radiation, scientists have discovered smaller effects on those exposed to radiation from atomic weapons than traditionally believed. A long-term study of post-World War II Japanese atomic bomb survivors determined that of the 10,929 people exposed to radiation who died from cancer, only 527 died as a result of the radiation itself. This research also allowed scientists to determine that radiation doses below 100 millisieverts cause no elevations in rates of illness or disease (Ropeik, 2013). The majority of Fukushima survivors were below this threshold. The World Health Organization determined that following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, psychological effects caused far more damage to survivors than exposure to radiation itself (World Nuclear Association, 2016). The stress and fear surrounding radiation exposure should not be taken lightly, yet a clear separation exists between the amount of damage people believe radiation can cause and the effects it actually has on people’s health. Radiation is also naturally occuring. Elements like uranium and potassium are found in nature, meaning the average person accumulates a certain amount of radiation exposure over their lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • Swedish Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Energy Accidents
    Swedish emergency preparedness for nuclear energy accidents Swedish emergency preparedness for nuclear energy accidents Produced by Lena Lindell, InfoTelje Translator James Butler, Swedish Rescue Services Agency Cover photo Anders Wiklund Published 2001 Order number R79-250/02 ISBN 91-7253-147-9 This booklet includes the following A description of the Swedish emer- gency preparedness for protection Responsibility 2 measures during a nuclear energy accident. What are nuclear Nuclear technology 6 energy accidents? Accidents in nuclear power plants, in installations for nuclear fuel and Your role 8 waste, during the transport of spent nuclear fuel, on vessels driven by nuclear reactors, with satellites pow- ered by nuclear reactors or batte- ries containing radioactive substan- Our role 10 ces (radioactive substances are those that emit radiation) Who makes up the Alarm 17 emergency preparedness Exercises 19 organisation? The county administrative boards, municipalities, and authorities res- ponsible for nuclear energy, radia- During an accident 21 tion protection, agriculture, fishe- ries, foodstuffs etc. Addresses and Reading tips 26 If you want to know who is re- telephone numbers sponsible for what, then read ‘Res- ponsibility’ on page 2. If you want to follow what happens once the alarm has been raised then read ‘During an accident’ on page 21. Keep this booklet by your telephone directory 1 Preparedness means being Respons- prepared for the unexpected… ibility …and being able to minimise the consequences of an accident. This booklet describes the Swedish emergency preparedness for protection measures during a nuclear energy accident. If a nuclear energy accident occurs in Sweden or abroad the emergency preparedness organisation will protect people and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost of Fear
    The High Cost of Fear Understanding the Costs and Causes of South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Energy Phase-Out By Michael Shellenberger, Mark Nelson, Madi Czerwinski, Michael Light, John Lindberg, and Minshu Deng August 2017 The High Cost of Fear Page !1 of !62 Cover photo credit: Kenneth Lu/Flickr The High Cost of Fear Page !2 of !62 Table of Contents Executive Summary About the Authors Introduction I. South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Phase-out A. Political Reform and Democratization B. Challenges and Opportunities 1. Methodology 2. Findings II. Understanding Anti-Nuclear Fear A. Why Prosperity Breeds Paranoia B. Why Environmentalists Turned Against Nuclear in the 1970s C. Foreign Funding and Misinformation in South Korea D. The Truth About Fukushima E. Fukushima as Panic F. Hyping Earthquake and Corruption Fears III. Lessons and Recommendations A. Lessons Learned B. Recommendations IV. Appendix A: Environmental Progress Donors V. Appendix B: Open Letter to President Moon from Climate Scientists and Conservationists VI. Appendix C: “Why I Changed My Mind about Nuclear Power” by Michael Shellenberger. Chosun Ilbo. July 21, 2017. VII. Appendix D: Supplementary Charts and Figures The High Cost of Fear Page !3 of !62 Executive Summary “The High Cost of Fear” uses publicly available data, the best-available peer-reviewed scientific research and simple methods to calculate economic and environmental impacts of a nuclear phase-out in South Korea. We find a nuclear phase-out would: • Cost at least $10 billion per year for additional natural gas purchases
    [Show full text]
  • HUMAN HEALTH and ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS This Lecture Course Will Examine Six of the World's Worst Man-Made Disasters Caused B
    HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS This lecture course will examine six of the world’s worst man-made disasters caused by human error, expediency, greed or other reasons. We will review the historical background, causes, the health and environmental effects, the legal responsibility to victims, and ramifications and/or regulatory changes due to each disaster. Chemical toxicity to humans and environmental species will be also be examined. The first lecture will be an introduction to the discipline of toxicology (for background see the slides at https://www.toxicology.org/education/edu/educators.asp), using examples of different toxins from among those experienced in the disasters. The remaining lectures will include an in-depth presentation of the details of each disaster. No knowledge of science is required. The final lecture will be a discussion of the course. The following major disasters will be covered: • Minamata Bay, Japan, 1950s: From 1932-1968 Chisso Chemical plant knowingly dumped methyl mercury into Minimata Bay, killing fish due to mercury poisoning and contaminating the food supply, harming people. Many people consuming the fish developed a neurological hundreds of deaths disorder, named “Minamata Disease.” There were thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths and birth defects. • Seveso, Italy, 1976: On July 10, 1976 an explosion at the Icmesa chemical plant accidently released a toxic cloud containing one of the most lethal substances known, dioxin. Thousands of animals and birds died and hundreds of residents were sickened. The release of the cloud and the eventual disposal of contaminants is a story of coverup and intrigue. • Niagara, NY, USA: 1978: The Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation dumped 21,800 tons of chemical wastes, including polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and long-acting pesticides into a 16-acre ditch, called Love Canal, from 1942-1958 in Niagara, NY.
    [Show full text]