1
SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
I begin my submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by posting an article which I wrote for the Australian Medical Student Journal, which outlines in some detail the medical implications of the whole nuclear fuel chain.
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health
Dr. Helen Caldicott
Dr Helen Caldicott is an Australian physician and a leading anti-nuclear activist. She is a widely respected lecturer and authority on the topic, and played an integral role in the formation of the organisations Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The latter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She has won numerous prizes for her efforts, such as the Humanist of the Year award from the American Humanist Association.
Due to my personal concerns regarding the ignorance of the world’s media and politicians about radiation biology after the dreadful accident at Fukushima in Japan, I organized a 2 day symposium at the NY Academy of Medicine on March 11 and 12, 2013, titled ‘The Medical and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima,’ which was addressed by some of the world’s leading scientists, epidemiologists, physicists and physicians who presented their latest data and findings on Fukushima. [1] 2
Background
The Great Eastern earthquake, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, and the ensuing massive tsunami on the east coast of Japan induced the meltdown of three nuclear reactors within several days. During the quake the external power supply was lost to the reactor complex and the pumps, which circulate up to one million gallons of water per minute to cool each reactor core, ceased to function. Emergency diesel generators situated below the plants kicked in but these were soon swamped by the tsunami. Without cooling, the radioactive cores in units 1, 2 and 3 began to melt within hours. Over the next few days, all three cores (each weighing more than 100 tonnes) melted their way through six inches of steel at the bottom of their reactor vessels and oozed their way onto the concrete floor of the containment buildings. At the same time the zirconium cladding covering thousands of uranium fuel rods reacted with water, creating hydrogen, which initiated hydrogen explosions in units 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Massive quantities of radiation escaped into the air and water – three times more noble gases (argon, xenon and krypton) than were released at Chernobyl, together with huge amounts of other volatile and non-volatile radioactive elements, including cesium, tritium, iodine, strontium, silver, plutonium, americium and rubinium. Eventually sea water was – and is still – utilized to cool the molten reactors.
Fukushima is now described as the greatest industrial accident in history.
The Japanese government was so concerned that they were considering plans to evacuate 35 million people from Tokyo, as other reactors including Fukushima Daiini on the east coast were also at risk. Thousands of people fleeing from the smoldering reactors were not notified where the radioactive plumes were travelling, despite the fact that there was a system in place to 3 track the plumes. As a result, people fled directly into regions with the highest radiation concentrations, where they were exposed to high levels of whole-body external gamma radiation being emitted by the radioactive elements, inhaling radioactive air and swallowing radioactive elements. [2] Unfortunately, inert potassium iodide was not supplied, which would have blocked the uptake of radioactive iodine by their thyroid glands, except in the town of Miharu. Prophylactic iodine was eventually distributed to the staff of Fukushima Medical University in the days after the accident, after extremely high levels of radioactive iodine – 1.9 million becquerels/kg were found in leafy vegetables near the University. [3] Iodine contamination was widespread in leafy vegetables and milk, whilst other isotopic contamination from substances such as caesium is widespread in vegetables, fruit, meat, milk, rice and tea in many areas of Japan. [4]
The Fukushima meltdown disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swathes of Japan and will never be “cleaned up.” It will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever. I predict that the three reactors which experienced total meltdowns will never be dissembled or decommissioned. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) – says it will take at least 30 to 40 years and the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts at least 40 years before they can make any progress because of the extremely high levels of radiation at these damaged reactors.
This accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive food and drink radioactive beverages. In 1986, a single meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl covered 40% of the European land mass with radioactive elements. Already, according to a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences, over one million people have already perished as a direct result of this catastrophe. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because large parts of Europe and the food grown there will remain radioactive for hundreds of years. [5]
Medical Implications of Radiation
Fact number one
No dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk of developing malignancy or genetic disease.
Fact number two 4
Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Females tend to be more sensitive compared to males, whilst foetuses and immuno- compromised patients are also extremely sensitive.
Fact number three
High doses of radiation received from a nuclear meltdown or from a nuclear weapon explosion can cause acute radiation sickness, with alopecia, severe nausea, diarrhea and thrombocytopenia. Reports of such illnesses, particularly in children, appeared within the first few months after the Fukushima accident.
Fact number four
Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by radiation, as well as over 6000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.
But, as we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical procedures, X-ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations.
Types of ionizing radiation
1. X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body. 2. Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil. 3. Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known. 5
4. Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic. 5. Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic. So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs. 2. Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease. 3. Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia. 4. Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture, 6
12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules. In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise. 5. Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine. The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time. Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth. Conclusion
In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.
Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to animals will happen to human beings. [7]
The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location. It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the 7 contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years? There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.
Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France, Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000 metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors globally.)
This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for the rest of time.
This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”
The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late?
References
[1] Caldicott H. Helen Caldicott Foundation’s Fukushima Symposium. 2013; Available from: http://www.helencaldicott.com/2012/12/helen-caldicott-foundations-fukushima-symposium/.
[2] Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis. The Japan Times. 2012.
[3] Bagge E, Bjelle A, Eden S, Svanborg A. Osteoarthritis in the elderly: clinical and radiological findings in 79 and 85 year olds. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50(8):535-9. Epub 1991/08/01.
[4] Tests find cesium 172 times the limit in Miyagi Yacon tea. The Asahi Shimbun. 2012.
[5] Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV, Sherman-Nevinger JD. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment: Wiley. com; 2010. 8
[6] Fukushima Health Management. Proceedings of the 11th Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey. Fukushima, Japan2013.
[7] Møller AP, Mousseau TA. The effects of low-dose radiation: Soviet science, the nuclear industry – and independence? Significance. 2013;10(1):14-9.
Now to answer some of the questions posed by the Royal Commission
QUESTION 1.3.
1. Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power
By Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd A Fact Sheet Produced by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Physicians for Social Responsibility Thorium “fuel” has been proposed as an alternative to uranium fuel in nuclear reactors. There are not “thorium reactors,” but rather proposals to use thorium as a “fuel” in different types of reactors, including existing light‐water reactors and various fast breeder reactor designs. Thorium, which refers to thorium‐232, is a radioactive metal that is about three times more abundant than uranium in the natural environment. Large known deposits are in Australia, India, and Norway. Some of the largest reserves are found in Idaho in the U.S. The primary U.S. company advocating for thorium fuel is Thorium Power. Contrary to the claims made or implied by thorium proponents, however, thorium doesn’t solve the proliferation, waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power, and it still faces major technical hurdles for commercialization. Not a Proliferation Solution Thorium is not actually a “fuel” because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium‐235 (U‐235) or plutonium‐239 (which is made in reactors from uranium‐238), is required to kick‐start the reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium‐233 (U‐ 233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium‐238) to produce fissile uranium‐233. The use of enriched uranium or plutonium in thorium fuel has proliferation implications. Although U‐235 is found in nature, it is only 0.7 percent of natural uranium, so the proportion of U‐235 must be industrially increased to make “enriched uranium” for use in reactors. Highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium are nuclear weapons materials. 9
In addition, U‐233 is as effective as plutonium‐239 for making nuclear bombs. In most proposed thorium fuel cycles, reprocessing is required to separate out the U‐233 for use in fresh fuel. This means that, like uranium fuel with reprocessing, bomb‐making material is separated out, making it vulnerable to theft or diversion. Some proposed thorium fuel cycles even require 20% enriched uranium in order to get the chain reaction started in existing reactors using thorium fuel. It takes 90% enrichment to make weapons‐usable uranium, but very little additional work is needed to move from 20% enrichment to 90% enrichment. Most of the separative work is needed to go from natural uranium, which has 0.7% uranium‐235 to 20% U‐235. It has been claimed that thorium fuel cycles with reprocessing would be much less of a proliferation risk because the thorium can be mixed with uranium‐238. In this case, fissile uranium‐233 is also mixed with non‐fissile uranium‐238. The claim is that if the uranium‐ 238 content is high enough, the mixture cannot be used to make bombs without a complex uranium enrichment plant. This is misleading. More uranium‐238 does dilute the uranium‐233, but it also results in the production of more plutonium‐239 as the reactor operates. So the proliferation problem remains – either bomb‐usable uranium‐233 or bomb‐usable plutonium is created and can be separated out by reprocessing. Further, while an enrichment plant is needed to separate U‐233 from U‐238, it would take less separative work to do so than enriching natural uranium. This is because U‐233 is five atomic weight units lighter than U‐238, compared to only three for U‐235. It is true that such enrichment would not be a straightforward matter because the U‐233 is contaminated with U‐232, which is highly radioactive and has very radioactive radionuclides in its decay chain. The radiation‐dose‐related problems associated with separating U‐233 from U‐238 and then handling the U‐233 would be considerable and more complex than enriching natural uranium for the purpose of bomb making. But in principle, the separation can be done, especially if worker safety is not a primary concern; the resulting U‐233 can be used to make bombs. There is just no way to avoid proliferation problems associated with thorium fuel cycles that involve reprocessing. Thorium fuel cycles without reprocessing would offer the same temptation to reprocess as today’s once‐through uranium fuel cycles. Not a Waste Solution Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight and long‐term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium‐only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long‐lived fission products like technetium‐99 (half‐life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository. If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium‐232 is very‐long lived (half‐life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium‐232 or thorium‐228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium‐232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing the an amount (mass) of insoluble 10
thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 3 Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long‐term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non‐radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings. Ongoing Technical Problems Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK and the U.S. for more than half a century. Besides remote fuel fabrication and issues at the front end of the fuel cycle, thorium‐U‐233 breeder reactors produce fuel (“breed”) much more slowly than uranium‐plutonium‐239 breeders. This leads to technical complications. India is sometimes cited as the country that has successfully developed thorium fuel. In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially. One reason reprocessing thorium fuel cycles haven’t been successful is that uranium‐232 (U‐232) is created along with uranium‐233. U‐232, which has a half‐life of about 70 years, is extremely radioactive and is therefore very dangerous in small quantities: a single small particle in a lung would exceed legal radiation standards for the general public. U‐232 also has highly radioactive decay products. Therefore, fabricating fuel with U‐233 is very expensive and difficult. Not an Economic Solution Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly. In addition, as noted, inhalation of thorium‐232 produces a higher dose than the same amount of uranium‐238 (either by radioactivity or by weight). Reprocessed thorium creates even more risks due to the highly radioactive U‐232 created in the reactor. This makes worker protection more difficult and expensive for a given level of annual dose. Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long‐term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non‐radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings. Fact sheet completed in January 2009 Updated July 2009
QUESTION 1.8, 1.10
The medical consequences of uranium mining are numerous and far reaching. In the past over 50% of uranium miners died of lung cancer as a result of inhaling radon, a gas, and a daughter product of uranium. As well they were exposed to the inhalation and ingestion of radium, a soluble deadly carcinogen discovered by Madame Curie which is a calcium analogue and migrates to bones and teeth where it can induce bone cancer, and leukemia. 11
Because of better ventilation in underground mines the incidence of lung cancer has declined amongst uranium miners, however it is pertinent that Australian uranium miners have never been followed up to ascertain whether they have, and have had a higher than normal incidence of malignancies, and whether their offspring have been affected because their testicles are exposed to gamma radiation - similar to X rays) which is emitted from the uranium ore face. Incidentally face masks do not capture radon as it is a gas. This lack of follow up is a severe omission in government responsibilities which must be remedied.
Miners in open cut mines are also exposed to radium in the dust, radon gas in the air and gamma radiation emitted from the ore face.
Some relevant references found at the end of the submission
1. 2.
QUESTION 2.4
The global nuclear industry is in a state of decline partly as a result of the disastrous accident at Fukushima but also as a result of the rapid expansion of ever cheaper solar and wind power together with conservation.
References below
3.4. 5. 6. 7.
QUESTION 2.5
Emerging technologies that may affect the decision for South Australia to invest in the nuclear fuel chain.
I include below numerous articles attesting to the economic viability of geothermal power, and wind and solar power in the present and near future.
South Australia is perfectly placed to be the world’s most potent renewable energy state, with an abundance of solar, wind and geothermal energy all waiting to be tapped.
If this state decided to give a full commitment to renewables, not only would it substantially increase employment and the GDP, but it could become one of the energy superpowers of the world and a shining example of what the world needs. 12
1. Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes
Posted: 12/22/2013 7:55 pm EST Updated: 02/21/2014 5:59 am EST Huffington Post
Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes
We can have the energy we need without emitting carbon or using nuclear energy.
That's the takeaway from my recent interview with Dr. Arjun Makhijani on Progressive Radio Network (www.prn.fm, "All Together Now"). At the request of the esteemed Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Makhijani did the first analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of transitioning to a U.S. economy based completely on renewable energy, with no carbon dioxide emissions and no nuclear energy.
Despite his own initial skepticism, his research led him to conclude, Yes, we can do this. Dr. Makhijani lays out the path forward in his book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy.
I recently interviewed Dr. Makhijani on my radio show on Progressive Radio Network. He earned a Ph.D. in engineering (with specialization in nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley, then went on to warn people about the dangers of nuclear energy. When Dr. Caldicott asked him to write a book on meeting our energy needs without carbon pollution or nuclear power and offered to raise the money to do it, he was skeptical it could be done, thinking it would be too expensive.
I asked him what he discovered in his research that made him believe it is possible. He replied: "We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is making renewables more economically feasible. We can make this happen." Since the book was published, the pace of technology change has continued to accelerate.
- Wind power has been economical for years. In 2006, solar electric was five times more expensive than it needed to be to compete as a source for home energy, but it is becoming competitive.
- As demand goes up, the cost of production goes down: manufacturers can shift from custom- made to larger scale production. The price of silicon needed for solar cells is down. A few years ago, you'd pay $4 a watt for a solar panel, now it's 70 cents a watt.
"I thought we'd need major legislation such as a price on carbon through a carbon tax or trading emissions," said Dr. Makhijani. "But the technological developments are making renewables economically feasible without any major legislation." Thank God we don't have to rely on legislation passed by our increasingly dysfunctional Congress. He continued, "I thought 13 it would take to the middle of the century; now, if we try hard, it could be much faster -- by 2035 or 2040."
Demand for renewables is coming from many directions. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan increased its use of renewables, and is now the second largest market for solar energy, bigger than the U.S. Among the largest buyers of solar electricity in the US is that great bastion of radicals, the Pentagon. They are also leading in alternative energy. It makes sense, given that the military understands our vulnerability to disruption in oil supplies: if our oil supply were cut from the Mideast and elsewhere, we'd need renewables to ensure enough stable energy at home. Of course, climate is a security issue: more extreme weather increases the need for more domestic energy supplies.
Demand for renewables is also coming from the states which are leading this energy revolution. States from California to Maryland are passing incentives and lifting standards that increase demand for renewables.
Dr. Makhijani offers a clear goal -- a zero CO2 economy -- which gives policy coherence and a yardstick by which we can measure progress. He identifies 12 critical policies to be enacted to achieve it. I asked him, "What are the most important things we need to do to have affordable energy without using fossil fuels or nuclear energy?" He replied:
"We can eliminate half of our energy consumption through efficiency; we can get the rest of our energy from renewables."
When I asked, "Where can we have the most impact for the money?" he replied without hesitation, "Enact high efficiency standards for buildings, appliances, and vehicles."
-Mandate more efficient cars. We're doing and need to do more. Cars have been made that get 200 miles per gallon; we can have a standard of 100 mpg by 2030. Push plug-in hybrids.
-Increase efficiency standards for appliances. Some existing standards are proceeding well. A refrigerator used to consume 1800 kw-hours per year; today you can buy a larger, better performer that uses only 400 kw- hours per year. A 100-watt bulb today of good quality uses 1/5 or 1/7 the electricity of an incandescent lamp. But standards for air conditioning and heating are lagging far behind available technology.
-Fix existing buildings. Most old buildings are not well-insulated and waste lots of energy. When a house is sold, we could mandate that buildings meet a certain standard of energy efficiency, like fire codes and electrical safety standards. We can do it, but it's not required, so it's not being done at the level we need. Some people don't like regulations, but they can work well. 14
Since Dr. Makhijani was the principal author of the first comprehensive review of US energy efficiency in 1971, I asked him, "Where did we make progress in the past 40 years, and where do we still need to act?"
I was a staff member of the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation during the 1973 energy crisis. Our report became the basis of President Carter's energy policy. Today we use less than half of the energy we thought we'd use by now: energy use has not grown much, but the economy is 2-3 times bigger.
So that's good progress. We'd be in even better shape if the U.S. hadn't dropped the ball on energy policy in the 1980s. Since Carter, we haven't had a coherent overall energy policy, so we tend to scatter limited resources on bits and pieces.
What about limiting those pernicious carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, do you support cap and trade, or a carbon tax? Dr. Makhijani said: "I thought cap and trade would be efficient, but they made it too complicated, so I'm glad it didn't pass. A carbon tax is good, but we won't get it passed in Congress."
Other actions we can take include:
- Stop subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels and the nuclear industry. - Stop subsidies for biofuels. - Use government buying power to encourage the development of renewable supply technologies. - Ban new coal fired plants.
Dr Makhijani is generously giving away free digital copies of his important book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy on his website, ieer.org. Now that's some holiday cheer.
More:
Energy Nuclear Free Gift Policy Climate Energy Published on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 by Common Dreams
Costs Down, Profits Up: Green Energy Looking Good, Says UN
'A long-term shift in investment over the next few decades towards a cleaner energy portfolio is needed to avoid dangerous climate change'
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer 15
(Flickr / Black Rock Solar / Creative Commons license)
Costs are down, profits are up, and renewable energy is contributing an increasing amount of electricity to the world's energy grids, according the United Nations. With that information in mind, governments must now "re-evaluate investment priorities, shift incentives, build capacity and improve governance structures” to shift towards a green energy system.
The report, conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, reveals renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are showing "many positive signals of a dynamic market that is fast evolving and maturing," stated Achim Steiner, the U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director of UNEP.
While the industry has been struggling to gain momentum over the previous four years, 2013 saw a 54 per cent increase in energy stocks – "an improvement that took place as many companies in the solar and wind manufacturing chains moved back towards profitability after a painful period of over-capacity and corporate distress."
“While some may point to the fact that overall investment in renewables fell in 2013," said Steiner, this is actually largely because less money was needed to run the industry, whose costs continue a downward trend.
As countries such as China and Japan led the renewable energy boom, overall renewables accounted for 44% of 2013’s "newly installed generating capacity."
“This should give governments the confidence to forge a new robust climate agreement to cut emissions at the 2015 climate change conference in Paris,” said Steiner.
These advances have a drastic impact on the climate, the report notes. "Were it not for renewables, world energy-related CO2 emissions would have been an estimated 1.2 gigatonnes higher in 2013," it states. "This would have increased by about 12 per cent the gap between 16 where emissions are heading and where they need to be in 2020 if the world is to have a realistic prospect of staying under a two degree Centigrade temperature rise."
“A long-term shift in investment over the next few decades towards a cleaner energy portfolio is needed to avoid dangerous climate change," said Steiner.
Michael Liebreich, Chairman of the Advisory Board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, added: “Lower costs, a return to profitability on the part of some leading manufacturers, the phenomenon of unsubsidized market uptake in a number of countries, and a warmer attitude to renewables among public market investors, were hopeful signs after several years of painful shake-out in the renewable energy sector.”
2. QUESTION 3.9
Lessons from Fukushima and other nuclear accidents
Nuclear power plants, whatever their design, can never be made safe - they are at risk because of human fallibility (causes of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island), computer error, hacking, loss of external electricity supply, results of global warming with sea level rise or tsumamis with flooding of the control room, hurricanes, heating of water supplies such as occurred in France some years ago when the river water was too hot to cool the reactors. 1000 megawatt reactors require up to one million gallons per minute to keep them cool.
Below in the list of references number 8 is a presentation by a very experienced nuclear engineer named Arnie Gunderson re the risks of another nuclear accident.
Now the medical consequences of Fukushima and Chernobyl are very important for the Royal Commission to examine. A major nuclear accident contaminates large numbers of people, land and food inducing diseases for millennia to come. Nuclear accidents never end. References 9, 10, 11 in footnotes
QUESTION 3.11 17
Nuclear power plants do not stand alone. They are supported by a massive industrial infrastructure which is dependent upon the extensive use of fossil fuels and other potent greenhouse gases. I refer you to this excellent paper which puts nuclear power and global warming into perspective
Footnote 12
QUESTION 3.12 Nuclear wastes are multifactorial and are composed of many different radioactive isotopes, some which last seconds and others which remain radioactive for millions of years.
Radioactive elements are carcinogenic, mutagenic, and can cause a variety of diseases including cancers of all organs, leukemia, birth deformities and genetic diseases of which there are now over 2600 described, such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis, haemochromotosis, haemophilia etc.
Long lived radioactive elements will over time migrate from any container or waste repository, enter the water system and from there migrate and concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain, as described above in my opening article of this submission.
No container, be it steel, titanium, concrete etc lasts longer than 100 years and furthermore we will not be around to see the medical effects of our devotion to nuclear power and all things nuclear. That is for future generations to experience, this is the nuclear heritage we leave to them.
1. Here is a chart of the large number of isotopes made in CANDU reactors, however all nuclear reactors produce similar elements. Footnote 13
2. Below is a summary of the health impacts of the entire nuclear fuel chain footnote 14
3. Here is an article describing the impact of uranium mining on US indigenous people, the same diseases that are occurring and will occur in our aboriginal populations that live adjacent to operating or abandoned uranium mines as the tailings remain radioactive forever to contaminate the air they breathe and the water they drink . Footnote 15
QUESTION 3.13
I have described the risks involved by establishing nuclear facilities for the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels above. Nothing can be done to ensure that the risks described above can be prevented, as there are no safe levels of radiation, each dose of radiation is cumulative, and the nuclear fuel chain will continue to contaminate the environment and human bodies with increased levels of radiation for the rest of time. And this generation will be long gone. 18
QUESTION 3.14
There are no safeguards as addressed above that can, nor will ever address the dangers arising from the generation of nuclear energy
QUESTION 3.15 and 3.16
Numerous models and designs for Generation 1V reactors have been mooted recently for South Australia. Here is an article I wrote summarizing the latest information on these proposed reactors
Helen Caldicott Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Founder Womens’ Action for Nuclear Disarmament
Small Modular Reactors Huffington Post
Posted: 08/07/2014 8:59 pm EDT Updated: 10/07/2014 5:59 am EDT
Now that the "nuclear renaissance" is dead following the Fukushima catastrophe, when one sixth of the world's nuclear reactors closed, the nuclear corporations -- Toshiba, Nu-Scale, Babcock and Wilcox, GE Hitachi, General Atomics, and the Tennessee Valley Authority -- will not accept defeat.
Their new strategy is to develop small modular reactors (SMRs), allegedly free of the dangers inherent in large reactors: safety issues, high cost, proliferation risks and radioactive waste.
But these claims are fallacious, for the reasons outlined below.
Basically, there are three types of SMRs, which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity compared with current 1,000-megawatt reactors.
1. Light-water reactors
These will be smaller versions of present-day pressurized water reactors, using water as the moderator and coolant, but with the same attendant problems as Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Built underground, they will be difficult to access in the event of an accident or malfunction. 19
Because they're mass-produced (turnkey production), large numbers must be sold each year to make a profit. This is an unlikely prospect, because major markets – China and India -- will not buy U.S. reactors when they can make their own.
If safety problems arise, they all must be shut down, which will interfere substantially with electricity supply.
SMRs will be expensive because the cost per unit capacity increases with a decrease in reactor size. Billions of dollars of government subsidies will be required because Wall Street is allergic to nuclear power. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be relaxed, including reducing security requirements, and reducing the 10-mile emergency planning zone to 1,000 feet.
2. Non-light-water designs
These include high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) or pebble-bed reactors. Five billion tiny fuel kernels consisting of high-enriched uranium or plutonium will be encased in tennis-ball-sized graphite spheres that must be made without cracks or imperfections -- or they could lead to an accident. A total of 450,000 such spheres will slowly and continuously be released from a fuel silo, passing through the reactor core, and then recirculated 10 times. These reactors will be cooled by helium gas operating at high very temperatures (900 degrees C).
A reactor complex consisting of four HTGR modules will be located underground, to be run by just two operators in a central control room. Claims are that HTGRs will be so safe that a containment building will be unnecessary and operators can even leave the site ("walk-away-safe" reactors).
However, should temperatures unexpectedly exceed 1,600 degrees C, the carbon coating will release dangerous radioactive isotopes into the helium gas, and at 2,000 degrees C the carbon would ignite, creating a fierce, Chernobyl-type graphite fire.
If a crack develops in the piping or building, radioactive helium would escape, and air would rush in, also igniting the graphite.
Although HTGRs produce small amounts of low-level waste, they create larger volumes of high-level waste than conventional reactors.
Despite these obvious safety problems, and despite the fact that South Africa has abandoned plans for HTGRs, the U.S. Department of Energy has unwisely chosen the HTGR as the "next-generation nuclear plant." 20
3. Liquid-metal fast reactors (PRISM)
It is claimed by proponents that fast reactors will be safe, economically competitive, proliferation-resistant, and sustainable.
They are fueled by plutonium or highly enriched uranium and cooled by either liquid sodium or a lead-bismuth molten coolant. Liquid sodium burns or explodes when exposed to air or water, and lead-bismuth is extremely corrosive, producing very volatile radioactive elements when irradiated.
Should a crack occur in the reactor complex, liquid sodium would escape, burning or exploding. Without a coolant, the plutonium fuel could reach critical mass, triggering a massive nuclear explosion, scattering plutonium to the four winds. One millionth of a gram of plutonium induces cancer, and it lasts for 500,000 years. Extraordinarily, they claim that fast reactors will be so safe that they will require no emergency sirens, and that emergency planning zones can be decreased from 10 miles to 1,300 feet.
There are two types of fast reactors: a simple, plutonium-fueled reactor and a "breeder," in which the plutonium-reactor core is surrounded by a blanket of uranium 238, which captures neutrons and converts to plutonium.
The plutonium fuel, obtained from spent reactor fuel, will be fissioned and converted to shorter-lived isotopes, cesium and strontium, which last 600 years instead of 500,000. The industry claims that this process, called "transmutation," is an excellent way to get rid of plutonium waste. But this is fallacious, because only 10 percent fissions, leaving 90 percent of the plutonium for bomb making, etc.
Then there's construction. Three small plutonium fast reactors will be grouped together to form a module, and three of these modules will be buried underground. All nine reactors will then be connected to a fully automated central control room operated by only three operators. Potentially, then, one operator could face a catastrophic situation triggered by loss of off-site power to one unit at full power, another shut down for refueling and one in startup mode. There are to be no emergency core cooling systems.
Fast reactors require a massive infrastructure, including a reprocessing plant to dissolve radioactive waste fuel rods in nitric acid, chemically removing the plutonium, and a fuel fabrication facility to create new fuel rods. A total of 15 to 25 tons of plutonium are required to operate a fuel cycle at a fast reactor, and just five pounds is fuel for a nuclear weapon. 21
Thus fast reactors and breeders will provide extraordinary long-term medical dangers and the perfect situation for nuclear-weapons proliferation. Despite this, the industry plans to market them to many countries.
QUESTIONS 4.2 to 4.10
These questions are best addressed by the following film, and I suggest that everyone on the Royal Commission watch this extraordinary documentary to ascertain the gravity of burying radioactive waste in South Australia be it Australian waste or indeed the world’s nuclear waste. This waste would obviously be buried on Aboriginal land, near or over the Great Artesian basin, the life-blood of central Australia. There has never been and will never be a scientifically guaranteed method for isolating long lived carcinogenic nuclear waste for the ecosphere for one million years – the current requirement on the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years). Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the environment. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form. Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.
For example, Yucca Mountain in Nevada which has been mooted to store US high level waste is composed of pumice and thus is highly permeable to water, it is transected by several earthquake faults, one of which is called the Ghost Dance, and it also overlies the aquifer that supplies Las Vegas.
There is no container whether it is steel, concrete, titanium etc that will last for over one hundred years, so the notion of storing radioactive waste isolated from the ecosphere for one million years is pure fantasy. Footnotes 16, 17, 18
22
QUESTION 4.10
Transportation accidents occur every day whether on roads, freeways or railways. Here are just some examples of accidents involving radioactive cargos. An accident involving high level waste in or near a city or town could have disastrous consequences contaminating a large area for hundreds of years, contaminate the workers who try to clean it up and induce in the residents, malignancies and other diseases described above, as well as contaminating their food supply. Footnotes 19 20, 21, 22
QUESTION 4.12
The introduction of the world’s nuclear waste into the relatively pristine state of South Australia will sully its international reputation which relies upon its outstanding wine production plus its magnificent food and agriculture, renowned throughout Australia and indeed the world
I can reassure you that this outstanding and well deserved reputation would almost certainly be severely impaired if South Australia decides to embark upon a major industrial undertaking of the nuclear fuel chain together with nuclear reactors, enrichment facilities, reprocessing plants and radioactive waste storage.
In fact from my experience communicating with knowledgeable people all over the world, the reputation of Australian food in general would also suffer.
23
1. Attachment A 2. Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia. http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-
3. Lowdose-radiation-1.17876 The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015
4. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-nuclear-industry-decline- idUKKCN0PP0AX20150715
5. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/uranium-stocks-a-mixed-bad-for-investors/story- e6frg9lo-1227425900301 6. http://www.earth-policy.org/data highlights/2014/highlights48 Published on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 by Common Dreams
7. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/energy-revolution-2014/.
8. Chances of ANOTHER Nuclear Meltdown ONCE EVERY 7 ... ▶ 6:38 www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KukkhsUFFg
In Fairewinds’ latest video, Chief Engineer and nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen updates viewers on what’s going on at the Japanese nuclear meltdown site, Fukushima Daiichi.
9. IPPNW-Report "Health consequences resulting from Fukushima" (2013) 10. IPPNW-Report "Health consequences resulting from Fukushima Update 2015" (German) 11. Health Effects of Chernobyl - IPPNW www.ippnw.org/pdf/chernobyl-health-effects-2011-english.pdf
12. ]Nuclear power, energy security and CO emission - Storm ... www.stormsmith.nl/Media/downloads/nuclearEsecurCO2.pdf
13. http://www.ccnr.org/hlw chart.html
14. Health Risks of Nuclear Power Attachment B 15. 2015 http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/abandoned uranium m ine below Sonia Luokkala – May 5,
16. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126221144 24
17. http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ 18. Into Eternity The Movie 19. http://www.wiseinternational.org/node/4175 20. .http://www.ustream.tv/itsoureconomy 21. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580722/Radiation-quarantine-Canadian-port- container-filled-uranium-falls-loaded-ship.html#ixzz2wBxvgKlH 22. http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ltfs-full.pdf
ATTACHMENT A
INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR 19th World Congress – Basel, Switzerland March 25‐30, 20010
RESOLUTION
Adopted on August 29, 2010
Title of Resolution: Global call to action for a ban on uranium mining
Submitted By: Helmut Lohrer
Affiliates: IPPNW Germany and PSR/IPPNW Switzerland Date Submitted: August 18, 2010
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
Uranium ore mining and the production of uranium oxide (yellowcake) are irresponsible and represent a grave threat to health and to the environment. Both processes involve an elementary violation of human rights and their use lead to an incalculable risk for world peace and an obstacle to nuclear disarmament.
The International Council of IPPNW therefore resolves that:
IPPNW call for appropriate measures to ban uranium mining worldwide.
Reasons for Above:
Uranium mining contaminates groundwater and radioactivity remains in the heaps, tailings and evaporation ponds. Uranium and its radioactive decay elements are highly toxic. They attack inner organs and the respiratory system. Scientific studies have shown that the following diseases are caused by exposition to radon gas, uranium and uranium’s decay elements: Bronchial and lung cancer; cancer of the bone marrow, stomach, liver, intestine, gall bladder, kidneys and skin, leukemia, other blood diseases, psychological disorders and birth defects.
Approximately three‐quarters of the world’s uranium is mined on territory belonging to indigenous peoples. The inhabitants of affected regions are (for the most part) vulnerable to exposure from radioactive substances that threaten them with short‐ and long‐term health risks and damaging genetic effects.
As well as the direct health effects from contamination of the water, the immense water consumption in mining regions is environmentally and economically damaging – and in turn detrimental for human health. The extraction of water leads to a reduction of the groundwater table and thereby to desertification; plants and animals die, the traditional subsistence of the inhabitants is eliminated, the existence of whole cultures are threatened.
This is not all. Ending uranium mining ‐ also because of its relevance to the processing of uranium, its military use, the production of nuclear energy and the unresolved problem of how to permanently dispose of nuclear waste ‐ would represent a provision of preventive health care, as well as a policy of peace and reason.
Banning uranium mining would reduce the risk of proliferation. It would make uranium resources more scarce, thus accelerating the abandonment of the civil use of nuclear energy. The pressure on political decision‐makers to find safe methods of permanently disposing of nuclear waste would increase. Banning uranium mining would thus promote the phasing‐out of the irresponsible practice of using nuclear energy and increase pressure globally to force a change‐over to renewable energies.
Describe how this resolution might be implemented and by whom:
In order to achieve the goal of an international ban, IPPNW will strengthen its public education on this issue and exert influence on both national and international political decision‐makers.
Estimate for amount of staff time and resources required to implement this resolution:
Minimal staff time will be required, mainly for coordination of activities and communication between activists.
Estimated expenses and sources of funding:
Minimal cost for shipment of information material. Fact Sheet Uranium Mining 1 en en w 0:: (!) z...J Ow OUT OF CONTROL: ucn 0 <(- o;!m ou.. FROM MINING TO WASTE ;;:o 3:t' >- URANIUM IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH a._enz n._O:: - w w > ::x: - 1-z u_=> 0 - uow~ ZN w a::t Uranium is toxic wcn u.. ::::> Z(!) 0::::> ~<( Uranium is highly toxic and radioactive. Uranium has- depending on the 0::\0 n..N isotope - an estimated half-life of more than 4.47 billion years. To give you an idea of this time-span: Planet Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion (/)w years old. The uranium that is found naturally in small quantities in the _J earth's crust does not endanger human life or the environment. But o_ 0 mining it, bringing it up to the surface and making it into high ly w concentrated uranium poisons people, animals, plants, the earth and o_ water beyond the foreseeable future. (/) :J 0 From mining to waste- Uranium kills z w Mining rock that contains uranium -that is the extraction of natural CJ uranium isotopes U-234, U-235 and U-238 and processing them into 0 Triuranium octoxide (,yellowcake"), uranium hexafluoride, and finally into z fuel rods and weapon-grade uranium -releases toxic, radioactive particles 0 and gases. z <( Even the use of uranium in of nuclear power plants during the - relatively I trouble-free- normal operation is associated with risks for plant workers ~ and inhabitants of the surrounding area and further afield. In case of <( accident, large tracts of land would be contaminated, as the Chernobyl w meltdown demonstrated. Even waste produced by the nuclear industry I makes people ill: the uncovered heaps, exposed to wind erosion; CJ groundwater contaminated by tailings (radioactive slurry); contaminated z water from nuclear installations flowing into rivers, lakes and the sea. z
Uranium is also used for making nuclear weapons. To do this, the U-235 ~ has to be enriched to about 90% concentration. If a country is able to ~ enrich uranium, it is also potentially able to develop nuclear weapons- a :J weapon of mass destruction. So-called depleted uran ium for armour z piercing uranium weapons is produced o'ut of the , left-overs" after <( enrichment for reactor fuel or weapons production. Who le regions have 0::: ~ been contaminated by the use of uranium weapons in the Gulf, Chechnya, former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and in the border country between India and Paki stan.
Studies show that uranium, and other substances released through uranium mining and processing, cause disease in mineworkers, nuclear industry workers and inhabitants. Radon, a radioactive gas, is released as uranium decays causing, above all, lung cancer as well as other kinds of cancer, such as of the liver and stomach, lymphomas, leukemia and other blood diseases. Uranium has, as a heavy metal, a toxic effect on the kidneys and can severely damage them. It can cause birth defects in embryos,increased infant death, still births and Down Syndrome.
Uranium mining violates human rights
A lack of education and inadequate protection of workers and inhabitants represent a violation of human rights. The right to life, liberty and security, to physical integrity, self-determination, the protection of human dignity, the right to clean water - these are just some of the rights that are afflicted by uranium mining and its processes.
Major economic interests and an alliance consisting of pol itical and economic actors often block independent studies in producing countries and processing locations. Freedom of opinion through the media is massively hindered in some producing countries.
In producer countries it is the indigenous population that suffers most from the effects of urani um mining. Apart from direct effects, there are also severe cultural and religious consequences. Governments allow, for economic interests, the mining of indigenous people's sacred sites. Cultural procedures, such as the way they feed themselves, and rites are disturbed. The means of subsistence are destroyed by the contaminationa of land and water. These developments affect, for instance, the Tuareg in Niger, the Uraon in India, Navajos and Lakotas in the USA und Aborigines in Australia.
For this reason, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW} call for a ban on uranium mining, abandoning nuclear energy and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Fact Sheet on Uranium Mining 3
HOW IS URANIUM MINED?
Uranium is found in rock. Natural uranium is contained in uranium ore in small concentrations of only fractions of a percent. For instance, the ore extracted from the Australian Olympic Dam Mine has a concentration of 0.05 %. Most reserves have uranium with a concentration of between 0.1 bis 0.2 %.
There is one exception: in Canadian Saskatchewan ore is mined that contains more than 20 % uranium. Nevertheless, extraction there has been prevented since 2006 due to flooding. The question of whether mining can continue there is contingent on what the ecological and health effects of the flood are. 1
There are two methods of extracting uranium: conventional open- pit or underground mining, or a chemical process of In-Situ-Leaching (ISL).
Conventional Methods
Depending on the depth in the ground of the seam of rock containing uranium, the deposit is either mined using surface (open-cast or open- pit) or sub-surface (underground) mining. The uranium ore is extracted through mechanical means such as blasting, drilling, pneumatic drilling, picks and shovels, and then transported to the surface.
After mining, the ore is ground to a fine powder in a uranium mill. Due to the very low concentration of uranium in the rock, immense amounts of rock have to be moved and processed in order to get a few kilograms of natural uranium. This results in enormous heaps. For instance, with a concentration of 0.1% of uranium 1000 tonnes of radioactive waste have to be dumped onto heaps to get just one tonne of natural uranium.
In a second stage of the process, the pulverised uranium ore is treated with a strong acid or leach. This procedure separates about 90% of the uranium from the surrounding rock. The remaining 10% and the resulting slurry (Tailings) are waste products that are collected in large tanks.
After drying, a yellow-brownish powder - so-called „yellowcake“ – is the result, containing a uranium concentration of approx. 80%. „Yellow cake“ is the first intermediate stage between uranium and the fuel
1 Karl-W. Koch (Hg.): Störfall Atomkraft; Bad Homburg, 2010 nuclear power plant or for a nuclear bomb. Two tonnes of uranium ore will give about one kilogram of „yellow cake“. 23
In-situ-Leaching (ISL)
This method also produces „yellowcake“. It is different from the conventional method in that it uses a chemical process to separate the uranium in the earth’s crust from the surrounding rock. The uranium solution is then pumped to the surface.
The chemical solution is injected into a drilled hole into the rock at the periphery of the uranium deposit. This liquid loosens the uranium from the rock and binds it; in other words, the uranium is „flushed“ out of the rock. This solution, now supplemented with uranium, is then brought up to the surface through another borehole.
The ISL-method can be used without mining enormous quantities of rock. It also has less impact on the environment and health than the conventional method. And it is cheaper.
However, groundwater currents around the uranium deposit cannot be calculated with 100% accuracy. Those currents can also change their direction. Not all of the contaminated liquid is pumped out. The rock reacts to the chemical solution unpredictably. All this means that there is a risk that the groundwater will become contaminated. This would be irreparable and have immeasurable consequences.
Although in-situ-leaching does not create heaps, the toxic and radioactive solution extracted from the uranium is collected on the surface and directed into evaporation ponds. Carcinogenic radon gas, among other substances, is emitted from these ponds into the environment.
ISL is particularly used for deposits of a low uranium concentration as well as during exploration and development of new deposits. 4
2 Fact Sheet by Uranium Watch of November 2007: www.ccamu.ca 3 www.nukingtheclimate.com; Background information, part 2 – Uranium Mining 4 ibid. Fact Sheet Uranium Mining 2 en en w a::: (!) z-' Ow URANIUM: THE PRODUCERS AND THE USERS u<.n o Where is uranium mined? The biggest producer of natural uranium worldwide is Kazachstan, producing 13,820 tonnes of natural uranium and accounting for 27.36% of global production. Then comes Canada with 20.14% and Australia with 15.69% of the market. Namibia and South Africa are c;:ounted together and are to be found in fourth place, followed by Russia in f ifth place with about 7% of the global market. Niger, Usbekistar und die USA make up the other large producers. In 2009, as compared to 2008, exactly 6666 ton nes more uranium was produced worldwide. World production reached 50,519 ton nes. 1 Global production of natural uranium grew by 33% between 1995 and 2008. The price for a US pound (0,45 Kilo) of U30 8 (,yellowcake") was US$ 46 (Spot Ux U308 Price) at the beginning of August 2010.2 One reason for the growth in demand for uranium is the annual deficit between the uranium needed by nuclear power plants and the amount being produced (every year the demand is greater than the supply from extraction can meet). Moreover •. less uranium is avai lable from the disarmament of nuclear weapons as originally projected and extraction problems have increased the demand for more and more deposits. Who are the biggest users of uranium in the world? According to the German Federal Government, there were 436 nuclear power plants (NPP) in operation with a total capac ity of 371,927 megawatts at the end of May 2009. 43 NPP (37,668 MW) were in the process of being constructed and 106 (118,095 MW) were in the planning stages at that time. Another 266 NPP (262,075 MW) were , envisioned".3 The demand for nuclear fuel could, therefore, double within the foreseeable future. The five biggest users of uranium are the USA, France, Japan, Russia and Germany. Die USA have their own- albeit minimal in comparison to their demand- uranium resource, whereas Russias's demand and resource is about the s.ame. Japan and Germany do not have any uranium reserves. According to the Nuclear Energy Agen cy and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) only seven countries in the world have a capacity to export uranium worth speaking of. 4 1 EURATOM Supply Agency, Annual Report 2009 2 Ux Consulting Company, 3 Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine GroBe Anfrage der Fraktion BOnd nis 90/ Die GrOnen im Deutschen Bundestag, Drucksache 16/13276 vom 28.5.2009 4 NEA I IAEA: Uranium 2007 (2008). Greenpeace: Reichweite der Uran-Vorrate (2006) Fact sheet Uranium Mining 4: 1 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneeberger_Krankheit 2 Factsheet on Uranium Radioa ctivity and Human Health, 3 Strahlentelex Nr. 494-495, 2007; insufficient covering over the tailings. Erosion through wind carries radioactive particles and radon many kilometres away from the heaps. The immense amount of water that is required by uranium mining represents another problem. For instance: Green peace, ROTAB- the NGO network of Niger, and CRIIRAD French research laboratory examined the effects of uranium mines in Niger. They concluded that, among other things, the mines had used 270 billion litres of water over 40 years of operation. After its use in uranium mining the contaminated water was dumped back into rivers and lakes. As well as the direct health effects of the contaminated water, the large consumption of water damages the mining region both ecole>gical ly and economically- and therefore in turn human health. The extraction of water leads to a reduction of the groundwater table and to desertification; plants and animals die, the traditional means of subsistence for the local population is thus destroyed. The authors of the study report that the waste rock from the mines is used for improving roads and building houses in Niger. Radioactive metal and articles from the mines are reused by the local population and sometimes even used to make cooking utensils. 4 Even when uranium is no longer extracted, the health risks remain. Usually, unused mines are flooded with water. This leads to the mine water- contaminated with radioactivity and heavy meta ls- seeping into the groundwater. Due to wind erosion from inadequately covered heaps and tai lings, leaky tailing dams and the contamination of water, radioactive substances are incorporated into the body through both the respiratory and -via the food chain - digestion systems. The whole population in the area surrounding the mine is endangered. Lung cancer, leukemia, stomach cancer and birth defects are the diseases most often to be found as a result of uranium mining.5 4 Report , Left in the Dust- Areva's radioactive legacy in the desert towns of Niger", Mai 2010 (Greenpeace International). Greenpeace-Factsheet: , Niger: Zuruckgelassen im Staub, (Greenpeace Schweiz) 5 Strahlentelex Nr. 494-495, 2007; http://www.strahlentelex.de/Stx_07 _ 494_501 -0?.pdf ATTACHMENT B in cauda venenum Health risks of nuclear power Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, MSc Independent consultant first publication: 22 November 2010 revision March 2, 2013 Abstract This study starts with a physical assessment of the quantities of the radioactivity being generated and mobilied by the entire system of related industrial processes making civilian nuclear power possible. It assesses the actual and potential exposure of the public to human- made radioactivity, and it discusses empirical evidence of harmful health effects of these exposures. The biomedical effects of radionuclides in the human body are briefly discussed. Furthermore this study analyses the mechanisms which may cause the uncontrolled dispersion of very large amounts of radioactivity into the environment. The study explains some consequences of a basic law of nature (Second Law) for the health risks of nuclear power now and in the future. Misconceptions, uncertainties and unknowns of the nuclear safety issue are addressed. Risk enhancing factors are discussed, along with the consequences of the present economic paradigm for the health risks of nuclear power at this moment and in the future. The hazards of nuclear power just do not stop at the reactor: what happens and what will happen with the human-made radioactivity? In causa venenum. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Ian Fairlie for reviewing the radiological part of this report and for his suggestions, Angelo Baracca for his suggestions, and Stephen Thomas and John Busby for their comments. The author notes that this report does not necessarily reflect their opinion. In cauda venenum A Latin phrase from ancient Rome, meaning: the poison is in the tail. Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of a story or development that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end. summaryHealthrisks 2 Summary and results Assessment of the health risks posed by nuclear power is an intricate issue with a number of different aspects. One aspect concerns the biomedical aspects van radioactivity in the human body and empirical observations of radiation-induced diseases. Another aspect comprises technical features of the civil nuclear energy system: the generator of human-made radioactivity and the possible technical means to keep the human-made radioactivity out of the human environment. A third aspect has to do with the pathways along which human-made radioactivity can enter (and is entering) the human environment. Technical as well as non-technical factors are playing an important role. A fourth aspect comprises the views of the nuclear industry on safety of nuclear power and health effects of radioactivity and the ties between the nuclear paradigm and economic interests. A fifth aspect concerns the communication on nuclear matters between the nuclear world at one side and decision makers and the general public at the other side. Scope of this study Starting point of this study are the following observations: • Nuclear power is inextricably and irreversibly accompanied by the generation of immense amounts of human-made radioactivity. • Radioactivity cannot be destroyed. • Radioactivity cannot be made harmless to humans. This study is based on a scientific and technical life cycle assessment (LCA) of the complete system of industrial activities needed to generate nuclear power, from cradle to grave. The analysis applies basic physical laws and conserved quantities, such as: energy, mass, amounts of radioactivity. This approach implies a global perspective and a long time horizon, because the full cradle-to-grave period of a nuclear power plant may easily come to 100-150 years and the nuclear-related activities of the process chain are spread across the continents. Moreover, the consequences of nuclear power with respect to adverse health effects may attain global proportions. Economic and financial aspects are not addressed. The study focuses on a unique feature of nuclear power, no other energy system has: the generation of human-made radioactivity and how to cope with it. Non-radioactive substances originating from the nuclear energy system posing health risks are not included in this study to limit its scope. Biomedical effects of radioactivity Radiology discerns two kinds of health effects of nuclear radiation in the human body: stochastic effects and non-stochastic (deterministic) effects. summaryHealthrisks 3 Non-stochastic (deterministic) effects Non-stochastic effects, also called deterministic effects, occur after exposure of a person to very high doses of nuclear radiation, for example in the vicinity of a nuclear explosion or near unshielded spent fuel. In such cases there is an evident causal connection between dose of radiation contracted and health effects, which become manifest within hours, days or weeks. These effects are usually called acute radiation syndrome (ARS) or radiation sickness. The nuclear world as represented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tends to count only deaths by ARS as victims of a nuclear disaster (e.g. Chernobyl). Stochastic effects This name points to the stochastic character of the health effects: the effects become manifest at random within a cohort of exposed people: there will be effects, however, it is not predictable which effect will develop with which person and after which period. The biological effects of radiation in living cells, especially in combination with the presence of various radionuclides inside the human body are a very complex matter, with many unknowns. The direct relationship between the exposure to a relatively low dosis of nuclear radiation (i.e. a dosis other than directly lethal) and the resulting adverse health effects on individual scale is very difficult to prove for a number of reasons, such as: • long latency period (often years to tens of years) between exposure and observable health effects • stochastic character of radiation-induced health effects • effects of other factors (age, gender, physical condition, non-nuclear chemicals, etcetera) • synergistic effects of a number of radionuclides in the human body together • basic biomedical unknowns. Extensive epidemiological studies can provide the empirical evidence of the relationship between radiation and health effects within large groups of individuals. Exposure to radionuclides and nuclear radiation can cause carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects, causing cancerous diseases, such as solid cancers and leukemia, but also non-cancerous diseases, such as: premature biths, low birth–weight, infant mortality, congenital defects and chronic diseases (e.g. immune system, diabetes). The health effects of all different types of radionuclides within the human body are not well understood and the biochemical mechanisms are poorly investigated. Furthermore there is strong empirical evidence that damage also occurs in cells not directy hit by radiation: the so-called non-targeted and delayed effects (e.g. the bystander effect), via unknown mechanisms. Adverse health effects from low radiation doses might be far more serious than previously assumed on the basis of the classic dose-effect models. Two major studies (German KiKK and French Geocap) revealed that the incidence of leukemia and solid cancers among young children living near nominally operating nuclear reactors has increased significantly. The results have been affirmed by other studies. Empirical evidence proves the dose-effect models to be unable to explain observed health effects of routine releases from nominally operating nuclear power plants. Apparently these observations do not stimulate a reconsideration of the benefits of nuclear power. summaryHealthrisks 4 The nuclear energy system The technical assessment of the potential dispersion of radioactivity into the human environment is based on a life-cycle analysis (LCA) from cradle to grave of the complete system of industrial processes which makes nuclear power possible. The nuclear process chain comprises: • front-end processes: the industrial activities needed to produce nuclear fuel from uranium ore, • mid-section: construction of the nuclear power plant, operation, maintenance and refurbishments of the power plant during its operational life, • back-end processes: the industrial processes needed to handle the human-made radioactive waste and to keep it out of the human environment forever. The cradle-to-grave (c2g) period is defined as the timeframe from the extraction of the first kilogram of uranium used by the system from its ore, through the definitive storage of the last kilogram of radioactive waste generated by the system in the safest conceivable way. The c2g period turns out to cover a timeframe of 100-150 years, an unprecedented period. The LCA proveds the chain of industrial processes and activities making nuclear power possible to be the most complex energy system ever designed. In addition the LCA uncovered a number of major uncertainties and unknowns which prove to be of great importance with respect to the viability and safety of nuclear power now and in the future. Nuclear power involves the mobilisation of naturally occurring radioactivity and the generation of human-made radioactivity, a billionfold of the mobilised natural radioactivity. Each reactor of 1 GWe power generates each year as much radioactivity as 1000 exploded nuclear weapons (Hiroshima bombs). Up until this moment adequate solutions to immobilise and isolate the human-made radioactivity from the human environment exist only in cyberspace. All anthropogenic radioactivity ever generated is still present in mobile state within the human environment, stored in temporary facilities, which are increasingly vulnarable to accidents. The nuclear process chain is an unfinished technical system. How to cope with the human-made radioactivity Human-made radioactivity ends up in broadly two waste streams: spent fuel and other radioactive wastes. Spent fuel has a relatively small volume and contains roughly 90-95% of the human-made radioactivity and is heat generating for hundreds of years. The other waste stream has a very large volume and contains the balance of the radioactivity. This second waste stream consists of the operational waste from the processes of the nuclear chain and the dismantling wastes. Dismantling waste is released when nuclear reactors and other radioactive contaminated facilities, including reprocessing plants, are decommissioned and dismantled. The only way to prevent the exposure of the public to human-made radioactivity via insidious pathways and as a result of large-scale disasters is to immobilise the radioactive waste physically and to isolate it from the biosphere. The best solution is to dispose of all radioactive waste in large repositories deep in geologically stable formations, as soon as possible. To deal with the global inventory of spent fuel at the current rate of generation about every summaryHealthrisks 5 three years a new large deep geological repository has to be opened, comprising a hundred kilometers of galleries with holes to store the heat generating spent fuel canisters. To dispose of the existing inventory of spent fuel from the past 10-15 of such deep geologic repositories would be required. Safe storage if the other radioactive waste requires construction of another type of deep geologic repository, comprising very large caverns to store the containers with the operational and dismantling waste. At this moment (2013) not a single geologic repository exists in the world. Radioactive waste management: current practice Spent fuel is stored in interim storage facilities: cooling pools and dry casks. After removal from the nuclear reactor the high residual heat generation of the spent fuel prevents reprocessing or direct storage in a geologic repository: it has to be cooled for many years before further handling is feasible. A small portion of the globally generated spent fuel has been reprocessed. All reprocessing waste, containing the bulk of the radioactive contents of spent fuel, is still stored in temporary facilities. By far the largest part of the globally generated spent fuel (hundreds of thousands metric tonnes) are still stored in interim storage facilities. Shallow burial of operational and dismantling waste is being practised to save costs. Within the foreseeable future the waste containers will go leaking at an increasing rate, due to inevitable degrading processes. Risk of disturbing the disposal sites by human action, unwittingly or intentionally, grows with time. Knowledge about the contents of the containers at the disposal site likely will get lost. Experiences in the past prove this loss of knowledge can occur within a few decades. Soil and groundwater will be irreversibly contaminated with many kinds of radionuclides, posing high health risks in the long run. In the past large volumes of radioactive waste, including ship reactors, have been dumped into the seas. At present illegal dumping at sea is still occurring. Nuclear industry frequently promotes two technological concepts as a reduction of the nuclear waste problem to easy to handle proportions: vitrification of high-level radioactive waste and partitioning & transmutation of the long-lived radionuclides in high-level waste. Both concepts turn out to be based on fallacies: the waste problem is worsened by their implementation. The main cause of the fallacies is ignorance of one of the most basic laws of nature, the Second Law of thermodynamics, as will be briefly explained below. Vitrification of high-level waste High-level waste, as meant by the nuclear industry in this context, consists of the fission products + actinides from spent fuel. In order to be able to vitrify this fraction, spent fuel has to be reprocessed. Reprocessing is the chemical and physical separation of spent fuel into uranium, plutonium and the highly radioactive fraction consisting of fission products + actinides. Reprocessing has been developed during the 1940s to retrieve plutonium from spent fuel from special nuclear reactors, for use in atomic weapons. During the 1960s and 1970s a civil version of reprocessing summaryHealthrisks 6 has been developed to produce plutonium for breeder reactors. The breeder reactor system proved to be technically unfeasible, a consequence of the Second Law. Actually reprocessing of spent fuel has become a superfluous nuclear process, burdening the society with exceedingly high costs. In the reprocessing sequence all gaseous fission products are released into the environment. Separation processes never go to completion and as a consequence a portion of the radionuclides set free from spent fuel remain in the waste streams of the reprocessing plant, particularly the highly soluble radionuclides. Not all radionuclides can be vitrified (fixed into a glass matrix), so a considerable portion of the highly radioactive waste has to be stored otherwise. Significant fractions of these non-vitrified wastes are discharged into the environment, partly unavoidably as a consequence of the Second Law, partly for economic reasons. Reprocessing generates a serious terroristic threat. MOX fuel (a mix of uranium oxide and plutonium oxide) can be separated with elementary chemistry into uranium and plutonium. The plutonium can be used in a crude but effective atomic bomb. The required technology is within reach of terroristic groups. MOX fuel is used in a number of civil nuclear power stations. A nuclear energy system including reprocessing and plutonium recycle (MOX fuel) has a negative energy balance, if measured from cradle to grave. Reprocessing leads to a huge volume increase of the radioactive waste and to massive discharges of radioactivity into the environment. Reprocessing turns out to be exceedingly polluting and greatly enhancing the health risks of millions of people and the chance of large-scale nuclear accidents. Partitioning & transmutation Partitioning & transmutation is a concept which would reduce the amount of radioactivity and/ or the longevity of the radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste. Partitioning is an advanced and extremely demanding version of reprocessing, the spent fuel has to be separated into a larger number of fractions (partitions) than conventional reprocessing. The required high separation specifications (purity and absence of losses) are not feasible, as a consequence of the Second Law. In practice partitioning & transmutation is unfeasible, because the concept is based on 100% separation efficiency and on the availability of 100% perfect materials. Both prerequisites are impossible as a consequence of the Second Law. Even if the concept would work as advertised it would take centuries (!) to reduce the existing amount of long-lived radionuclides to 10% of the original. Besides, not all long-lived radionuclides can be transmuted into short-lived or stable nuclides. The total amount of radioactivity greatly increases by partitioning & transmutation. For each long-lived radionuclide transmuted or fissioned several other radionuclides come into being, partly shorter-lived but also radionuclides with long half-lifes. summaryHealthrisks 7 The health risks resulting from dispersion of radioactive materials into the human environment would increase by implementation of a partitioning & transmutation system, assumed it would work, due to an increased amount of human-made radioactivity and to the distribution of the radioactive materials over an increased number of vulnerable facilities. In addition, nuclear power including partitioning & transmutation has a strongly negative energy balance, if measured from cradle to grave. Pathways of radioactivity dispersion into the human environment Nuclear health risks are posed by the dispersion of radioactive substances into the environment. Human-made radioactivity at the moment of its generation is contained in the spent nuclear fuel and comprises dozens of different radionuclides, representing all possible decay modes and nearly all elements of the Periodic Table. A large number of the generated radionuclides have very long half-lives: thousands to millions of years. Even after a cooling period of 100 years the specific radioactivity of spent fuel is still at such a high level that about 1 milligram of it ingested or inhaled would mean a lethal dose to a human. Several categories of events leading to the dispersion of radioactivity into the environment may be distinguished: • Authorized routine discharges of radioactive substances by nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, for example reprocessing plants. The authorised discharges, occurring day by day, are officially classified as harmless; measurements of their magnitude are usually unknown in the public domain. Epidemiological studies proved routine releases of radioactivity by nominally operating nuclear power plants to be harmful. • Unplanned, unauthorised discharges. Leaks and small accidents at nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities, such as interim storage facilities and reprocessing plants, occur frequently and often unnoticed for long periods. Amounts of discharged radioactivity vary widely, but may be very large. • Illegal trade and smuggling of radioactive materials and equipment is already a significant problem, little or no numerical data have been published. A related problem is the illegal dumping of radioactive waste at sea or in sparsely habitated regions. • Large-scale accidents of Chernobyl-Fukushima type, dispersing huge amounts of radioactivity over vast areas and affecting millions of people. Radionuclides from these sources are measurable worldwide. • Nuclear facilities are vulnerable to terroristic attacks. Severe accidents could also be initiated by hostile actions in an armed conflict anywhere in the world. The consequences of a Chernobyl-type accident do not stop at our borders. • The use of MOX fuel in civil nuclear reactors poses a great risk for terroristic use of plutonium in primitive but effective bombs. The processes of the back end of the nuclear chain are the most vulnerable to events causing massive discharges of radioactivity into the human environment, because the involved amounts of radioactivity are a billionfold of the front end processes. Vulnerable in particular are all facilities containing spent nuclear fuel: reactors, spent fuel interim storage facilities and reprocessing plants. Because of the very long storage periods (could come to 100 years or more) of the radioactive wastes in temporary storage facilities the inevitable ageing of materials is of summaryHealthrisks 8 major concern, a concern excerbated by economic factors (see below). On top of these factors the interim facilities are vulnerable to terroristic attacks and damage from external accidents and natural disasters. The radioactive wastes of uranium mining are dumped into the environment. Risks posed by dust and groundwater contaminated with the radioactive decay daughters of uranium and thorium are poorly or not investigated by the nuclear industry, but affect vast regions. Radioactive dust from uranium mines, containing extremely hazardous radionuclides, is blown by the wind over distances of thousands of kilometers in arid areas, for example in Australia, Namibia, USA. Reprocessing plants are extremely polluting. All gaseous radionuclides from spent fuel are released into the air. A substantial part of the chemically mobile radionuclides are released into the sea, along with a significant fraction of the uranium, plutonium and other actinides from the spent fuel. Separation processes never go to completion (a consequence of the Second Law), so unavoidably a fraction of the radionuclides from the spent fuel end up in the waste streams of the reprocessing plant. The pathways of tritium and carbon-14 into the human body via drinking water and the food chain are briefly discussed in this study. The long-term health effects of these two biochemically very active radionuclides in the human body are not well understood. Both tritium and carbon-14 are released on daily routine basis in large quantities by nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage facilities and reprocessing plants, under nominal operating conditions. Second Law The Second Law of thermodynamics plays a vital role with regard to nuclear safety and for that reason it is briefly introduced in this study. As a consequence of the Second Law materials, structures and equipment are degrading by time. Maintenance can retard the spontaneous degrading processes, but cannot prevent them. Another consequence of the Second Law is that the separation of a mixture of chemical species into pure fractions never goes to completion. Unavoidably a fraction of the species in a mixture will be lost in the waste streams of any separation process. The separation yield declines with: • increasing number of species in the mixture • decreasing concentration of the wished for species in the mixture • increasing chemical and physical similarity of the species to separate. The Second Law also implies, among other, that materials and structures cannot be made 100% perfect and reliable. This conclusion in turn has important consequences for the technical feasibility of some advanced technical concepts. These observations are ignored in the communication of the nuclear industry to the general public and politicians, in its reassuring statements on safety and in its presention of advanced technological concepts as mature techniques, some of which turn out to be possible only in cyberspace. summaryHealthrisks 9 Nuclear safety The nuclear industry claims nuclear power to be safe and clean, refering to a limited number of probabilistic risk analyses (PRAs) of Western types of nuclear reactors. This claim has a flawed basis for several reasons: • The official safety studies of the nuclear industry are covering a very limited portion of all industrial activities constituting the nuclear process chain from cradle to grave. • The probabilistic safety analyses done by the nuclear industry cover a limited number of types of nuclear reactors, comprising a small part of the existing nuclear installations worldwide which have the potential of large-scale accidents. • PRAs cover only mechanical failures of a system and are based on the assumption that materials and stuctures are of design quality. Ageing of materials and of electronics (a consequence of the Second Law) is hardly to quantify in the models. Preflight testing of complete systems, a common practice in aerospace technology, is lacking in nuclear technology. • A number of unavoidable and unpredictable factors cannot be quantified, such as: – human behaviour – economic pressure – terrorism – accidents by external causes – natural disasters According to the official safety analyses the chance of a ‘major accident’ (the nuclear jargon for a Chernobyl-like disaster) is once every 2500 years worldwide. Practice proves that chance to be about once every 10-20 years. A number of risk enhancing factors are discussed in this study, some technical, other non- technical. The chances of nuclear accidents and the magnitude of the imposed health risks increase with time fora number of reasons, such as: • rapidly increasing amounts of human-made radioactive materials in mobile state • unavoidable degradation of materials and constructions • increasing economic pressure. Inherently safe nuclear power is inherently impossible. In nuclear technology, as in any technology, only engineered safety exists, which is subject to ageing, to economic pressure and to unpredictable human behaviour. Substantial dedicated human effort and large investments of materials and useful energy can reduce the chance of large-scale dispersion of anthropogenic radioactivity into the human environment, but cannot eliminate it, as history has shown. Health risks of nuclear power are exacerbated by the fact that a number of routinely discharged hazardous radionuclides are difficult to detect, such as tritium, carbon-14 and iodine-129. But also numerous other hazardous alpha-emitting radionuclides in scrap and debris, originating from dismantled nuclear installations, including some actinides, are hard to detect by commonly used radiation detectors and so these radionuclides can easily enter the public domain, unnoticed. Large-scale accidents, involving dispersion of thousands of nuclear bomb equivalents of summaryHealthrisks 10 radioactivity, remain possible. Fukushima will not be the last one if the current paradigm of living on credit in the nuclear world persists. Factors enhancing nuclear health risks The chances of contracting a radiation-induced disease, either lethal or non-lethal, resulting from contamination with radioactive substances are enhanced by several factors. One factor is the fact that a number of biologically very active (and dangerous) radionuclides are not detectable by means of commonly used radiation detectors. So it is possible that large numbers of people are contaminated by significant doases of radioactivity without knowing it, and without acknowledgement by the nuclear industry, greatly enhancing insidious health risks. Several studies proved this effect to exist. Health risks posed by nuclear power are increasing with time due to several time-dependent phenomena, for example: • Increasing amounts of mobile radioactive material piling up in an increasing number of temporary storage facilities. • Unavoidable deterioration of materials and structures of spent fuel elements and of temporary storage facilities of radioactive wastes, due to degrading mechanisms as a consequence of the Second Law of thermodynamics. • Increasing economic pressure, resulting in: – decrease of safety-related investments and staff at the nuclear power plants – relaxation of official exposure standards and regulations – decrease of the efficiency and independency of inspections. • Increasing probability of terroristic and war actions, • Increasing threat posed by illegal trade of radioactive materials. Reliance on models in the nuclear industry The official radiation exposure standards for individuals are based on computer models, starting from unclear axioms and assumptions, which are not widely understood by scientists outside of the nuclear world, let alone by the public and politicians. The models are based on direct exposure to radiation from extern radiation sources and originate mainly from the 1940s and 1950s. Any mathematical and physical model has its inherent limitations and specific limitations and may exhibit considerable built-in uncertainties. Therefore they are not rock-solid. Extensive studies proved the official models to be unable to explain observed radiation-induced diseases and deaths. Apparently the models are not validated using empirical evidence from the past decades. Likely the radiological models do not include factors such as: • Biochemical properties of radionuclides within the living cells, after inhalation and/or ingestion of radioactive materials via air, water and/or food. • Non-targeted and delayed effects. • Chronic exposure to low doses of a number of different radionuclides simultaneously. summaryHealthrisks 11 • Synergestic effects. Nuclear health risks and economics Après nous le déluge The nuclear industry has a habit of Après nous le déluge by postponing indefinitively the actions required to deal adequately with the human-made radioactivity. The assertion of the World Nuclear Association, representing the Western nuclear industy, that all safety matters are fully under control is in flagrant contradiction to the practice. Strong economic and financial forces dominate the views in the political and industrial domains with regard to nuclear power and the perception of its health risks. Energy debt Nuclear power is building up immense energy debts by postponing the immobilisation and isolation of the radioactive waste from the biosphere, which is the only way to prevent large- scale accidents affecting vast regions. A physical analysis of the activities required to finish the overdue cleanup of the nuclear heritage points to the consumption of massive amounts of energy, materials and human resources and consequently to unprecedented economic efforts. The energy debt has a physical basis and will grow with time due to unavoidable deterioration of materials and structures with time, even if no new human-made radioactivity would be added to the existing amounts. The energy debt is not depreciating with time and cannot be discounted nor written off like common monetary debts. The financial consequences of the nuclear debts in countries like France and the UK are estimated to rise to hundreds of billions of euros, several times the final cost of the entire US Apollo moon project, with itshuge technological spinoff. With the Apollo project six crews succesfully landed on the Moon and returned safely to the home planet. Redeeming the energy debt will become increasingly burdensome to the economic system in the future, due to a forgotten trend: the increase of the thermodynamic scarcity of vital minerals. With time the amount of energy required to extract one kilogram of a metal or other mineral from the Earth’s crust will increase, due to the declining quality of the yet-to–exploit ores. The richest available resources are always exploited first. We may wonder if the future generations will be able to solve the problem we could not. Would the future generations have to their disposal sufficient energy, materials, human resources (skilled workforce) and economic ‘ability to cope’ to make their living environment as save as we and they would wish? Externalisation of costs Liability and cost of the back end of the nuclear process chain is systematically passed on to the taxpayer by the nuclear industry. Delayed expenses, for example definitive waste storage and dismantling of nuclear power stations, are systematically passed on to the future and consequently to the taxpayer: privatising the profits, socialising the costs. Discussions on lifetime costs, based on empirical data and not on wishful thinking, are the only method for a fair comparison of different energy supply systems, for example nuclear power summaryHealthrisks 12 with renewables. Relaxation of standards De-regulation of electricity markets has pushed nuclear utilities to decrease safety-related investments and to limit staff. The official standards for discharge of radioactive substances into the environment are susceptible to economic pressure. Relaxation of the standards of emissions occurs on grounds of economic arguments, not on grounds of scientific evidence. The same holds true for the classification of radioactive materials: either for unrestricted use in the public domain or as radioactive waste. Here the use of computer models happens to be convenient: models can easily be adapted, empirical evidence not. The efficiency and the independency of inspections of nuclear activities are under high economic pressure. The frequency of inspections is lowered to save costs. The nuclear industry urges for simplified and shortened license procedures with elimination of participation of local authorities. independent institutions and the public. Communication Communication to politicians and the public on nuclear affairs is complicated by a number of factors, such as: – complexity of the nuclear energy system as a technical system and consequently its opacity – military connection of nuclear technology – secrecy – political interests – financial interests Entanglement of interests Information on nuclear matters to the public and politicians originates almost exclusively from institutions with vested interests in nuclear power, for example International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Nuclear Association (WNA), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and from the nuclear industry itself, e.g. Areva and Electricité de France (EdF). The authoritive ‘nuclear watchdog’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has the promotion of nuclear power in its mission statement. Moreover, official publications of the IAEA have to be approved by all member states of the IAEA. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) have strong connections with the IAEA. The World Health Organization (WHO) cannot operate independently of the IAEA on nuclear matters. Questionable scientific methods The IAEA, and with it the nuclear industry, counts only persons suffering from deterministic effects of radioactivity, that are the acute deaths, as victims of nuclear accidents, for example Chernobyl. summaryHealthrisks 13 Wide disparities exist with regard to stochastic health effects of exposure to radioactive materials. The nuclear industry, especially the IAEA, pay little or no attention to publications from outside of the nuclear world, based on empirical evidence and pointing to connections between adverse health effects and radioactivity, which do not fit the views of offical publications. The IAEA does not bother to discuss in a scientific way the differences with their own studies and seems to take the view: “We do not need to look at it, because it cannot be true according to our models.” Unusual scientific methods are noticeable in reports of the nuclear watchdog IAEA onthe Chernobyl disaster: • reversed argumentation: the models are correct, empirical observations incompatible with the models are wrong because they are incompatible, • biased database: ignorance of data which do not fit in the official paradigm, • missing proofs: postulation of a theory to explain observed phenomena without underpinning the theory with unambiguous proofs, • absence of falsification of other theories which could explain observed phenomena as well, or even better, than the reported explanations. Downplaying the hazards Downplaying the risks and health effects of radioactivity is an invariable constituent of the official statements from the nuclear world, regarding accidents and routine releases involving radioactive materials. Systematic minimalisation of the health effects caussed by radioactivity in the human body is linked to: • the long latency periods and the stochastic occurrence of the (always detrimental) health effects • many unknowns with regard to the biochemical mechanisms of radionuclides inside the human body • reliance on models and ignorance of empirical evidence. By its unusual scientific methods and by systematically playing down the health risks of radioactivity the nuclear world has developed a strongly biased way to communicate with the general public and politicians on matters of health effects and risks of nuclear power. By denying the long-term adverse health effects of radioactivity much help for the affected people may remain undone. Down playing the hazards does not mitigate the adverse health effects resulting from radioactive contamination. it happened in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia after the Chernobyl disaster, it threatens again to happen in Japan after the Fukushima disaster. summaryHealthrisks 14 Main conclusions • Adverse health effects of radioactivity in the human body are far more serious and are inflicted at far lower doses of radioactive contamination than the official models predict. • Mechanisms of the biochemical effects of radiation and radionuclides inside of the human body are poorly investigated and largely unknown. A number of observed phenomena are not understood. • Inherently safe nuclear power is inherently impossible. As with any technical system, only engineered safety is possible, which is subject to: – degrading mechanisms as a consequence of the Second Law of thermodynamics – degrading effects resulting from economic pressure, – unpredictable human behaviour, – unpredictable natural disasters • Nuclear power delivers energy on credit. All radioactive waste ever generated is still stored in temporary storage facilities, increasingly vulnerable to accidents. Safe isolation and storage of the nuclear heritage constitutes a huge debt in terms of energy, materials, human effort and economic means. • Safe solution of the nuclear waste problem is not a matter of advanced technology, it is a matter of dedicated effort. • The communication on nuclear matters from the nuclear industry, IAEA and WHO to politicians and the general public is one-sided, coloured by conflicts of interests and flawed by questionable scientific methods. • The official views of the nuclear industry and its associated institutions on nuclear health risks heavily rely on computer models most of which stem from the 1940s and 1950s. • Health hazards posed by nuclear power are systematically downplayed by the nuclear industry. • Dispersion of radioactive materials into the human environment is increasing with time and consequently the insidious health risks of radioactive contamination. • The chance of another disaster like Chernobyl and Fukushima is increasing with time. • Health risks posed by nuclear power seem to be in the first place an economic notion. Economic and financial considerations strongly affect the safety culture in the nuclear industry. Safety standards, based on computer models, can easily be adapted to economic choices. summaryHealthrisks 15 Epilogue Nuclear power covered 2,9% of the world final energy consumption in 2010, corresponding with 1.9% of the world primary energy production, a share declining with time. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters each caused an economic damage of hundreds of billions of dollars and affected the health of millions of people. If we continue with nuclear power in the ‘business- as-usual’ mode, Fukushima might be not the last disaster of its class Thinking about nuclear power homo economicus should wonder: How much health damage and how much economic damage are we willing to accept in exchange for that small nuclear contribution? For what reason do we think society needs nuclear power? Aren’t there other ways to make huge profits, in much safer, cleaner and affordable ways, which are really sustainable? How much are we willing to pay for the health and socio-economic stability of ourselves, our childern and grandchildern and their offspring? summaryHealthrisks 16