One of the chief objections to nuclear power is the catastrophic implications of nuclear accidents or leaks. No better examples of that danger can be found in the aftermath of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters. Reports out this week show precisely how lasting such damage can be.
You know Dasher and Dancer
And Prancer and Vixen,
Comet and Cupid
And Donner and Blitzen.
But do you recall
The most famous reindeer of all?
Geiger the radioactive reindeer
That may be the new lyrics coming out of Norway where the country has been recording rising levels of radioactivity among Norway’s grazing animals, especially its reindeer population. It has been roughly 30 years since the nuclear plant explosion in Chernobyl, but the radioactive contamination continues to be registered among roaming animals as well as plant life.
In September, 8200 becquerel per kilo of the radioactive substance Caesium-137 was measured in reindeer in comparison to a prior high of 1500 becquerel among the reindeer in September 2012.
The reason appears to be radioactive mushrooms. The longer than usual mushroom season has allowed a greater and higher range of mushroom production. The gypsy mushroom in particular can have absurdly higher levels of radioactivity.
Caesium-137 has a physical half-life of 30 years.
In the meantime, the typhoon in Asia has led to new water leaks of radioactive rainwater at Fukushima on Monday. TEPCO has had an appalling record at the plant and has been responsible for a series of incorrect estimates and leaks of radioactive water. Such contamination is continuing with bad weather like this week. The leak thus far does not appear to have reached the ocean but TEPCO is viewed by many as a highly unreliable source of information. Just last February, a new leak was disclosed at the plant. About 100 metric tons (26,400 gallons) of water may have escaped a concrete barrier.
The ongoing contamination from both disasters shows the massive costs and lingering problems associated with this technology. Not easy to track are the collateral costs of cancer and illness associated with such exposure and contamination.
bigfatmike,
Just an fyi, Brazil Nuts are one of the most radioactive foods on Earth and it’s not caused by fallout.
http://farnham.blogspot.com/2007/04/brazil-nuts-for-that-healthy-glow.html
I’m not saying that the mushrooms are the same case but the article is lacking information. Maybe I’m asking for to much in the present day of “news” reporting.
“I’m not saying that the mushrooms are the same case but the article is lacking information. Maybe I’m asking for to much in the present day of “news” reporting.”
The question you asked was how they know the radiation was from the nuclear disaster and not from nature. The article clearly identifies the problem as Caesium-137. That isotope is a well know product from the nuclear disaster.
Not only that, but naturally occurring Caesium-137 is rare:
“Caesium-137 in the environment is anthropogenic (human-made). Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from the same element’s nonradioactive isotopes but as a byproduct of the nuclear fission of much heavier elements,[10] meaning that until the building of the first artificial nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile-1, in late 1942, it had not occurred on Earth in significant amounts for approximately 1.7 billion years.”
So the article in the cite was actually pretty good and clear. There is a clear line of concentration from the fallout from the nuclear disaster to the ground to the mushrooms and further concentration in the flesh of grazing animals.
It is pretty easy to follow the argument for anybody who cares to read.
” Still wondering how he is quite certain that the radiation can from Chernobyl and not natural sources.”
Doesn’t it go something like this: mushrooms don’t literally absorb radioactivity, they absorb radioactive particles.
When nuclear plants release particles they are rarely if ever in proportions that occur in nature.
If the particles separated from mushrooms match the isotopes released from a nuclear plant then it is a pretty good bet that the particles came from the plant.
The only confusion would arise if the naturally occurring particles already in the soil matched the isotopes released by the plant. But that possibility is unlikely and testable.
It is relatively easy and reliable to determine if contamination in the soil is due to particles, that is isotopes, release by a nuclear plant.
slohrss – I agree.
A good conversation. I think it is important to have as many clean energy producing technologies as possible. There then will be constant challenge to improve, make more efficient, and clean. Hopefully someday the subsidies will go away. I would love to see the grotesque dependence on primitive fossil fuels end in my lifetime.
bettykath – “All energy forms receive subsidies: nuclear, oil, coal, solar, wind (another form of solar). If the money being directed to the fossil fuels were redirected to solar, we’d be fossil fuel free very quickly, relatively speaking.”
Like I said, I’m against all subsidizing. I’m not really sure how you come to your conclusion. How would you know that?
Jim, “I have no issue with solar and wind as long as they aren’t subsidized. I don’t know Darren, he seems like a nice guy, but I don’t want to pay for his solar panels. Before you all jump on that one, I don’t want the other forms subsidized either. ”
All energy forms receive subsidies: nuclear, oil, coal, solar, wind (another form of solar). If the money being directed to the fossil fuels were redirected to solar, we’d be fossil fuel free very quickly, relatively speaking.
happypappies, From your link.
“It is possible – but quite difficult – to design thorium fuels that produce more U-233 in thermal reactors than the fissile material they consume (this is referred to as having a fissile conversion ratio of more than 1.0 and is also called breeding). Thermal breeding with thorium requires that the neutron economy in the reactor has to be very good (ie, there must be low neutron loss through escape or parasitic absorption). The possibility to breed fissile material in slow neutron systems is a unique feature for thorium-based fuels and is not possible with uranium fuels.”
If you watch the last video from the link that Slohrss29 posted, Kirk Sorensen talks about slow breeding. He uses the term “threshold of two”. He claims that Th passes this test even when considering neutron absorption.
Jim 22 First of all – I am all about clean energy. It’s ju st I talked at length to someone about this that is very knowledgeable after the Fukushima disaster because I have always been afraid of Cesium 37 breeder rods. I have seen so many denial reports from Japan on this – Monitoring of Fukushima Daiichi 1 had previously shown an increase in radiation levels detected near to the unit emerging via routes such as the exhaust stack and the discharge canal. These included caesium-137 and iodine-131, Nisa said, noting that levels began to decrease after some time.
Nevertheless the amount of radiation detected at the site boundary reached 500 microSieverts per hour – exceeding a regulatory limit and triggering another set of emergency precautions. It also meant the incident has been rated at Level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) – an ‘accident with local consequences’.
Note: The seawater might be used for spraying within the containment, for additional cooling, rather than injection into the reactor core. That is what comes of too much uncertainty and too little hard information.
I am not trying to stray here. I just want you to know I wish that I had more hope for Thorium but I am afraid it is not economical. That is what my link was supposed to show you. Way too much went into it to make it fissile. It is verrrry expensive. I understand the process.
Jim22 Sorry – forgot thread link – http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/
Personanongrata
“Atmospheric A-Bomb testing the gift that keeps on giving.
Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks
Exposures 50 years ago still have health implications today that will continue into the future
Steven L. Simon, André Bouville and Charles E. Land
Prior to 1950, only limited consideration was given to the health impacts of worldwide dispersion of radioactivity from nuclear testing. But in the following decade, humanity began to significantly change the global radiation environment by testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. By the early 1960s, there was no place on Earth where the signature of atmospheric nuclear testing could not be found in soil, water and even polar ice.
Cancer investigators who specialize in radiation effects have, over the intervening decades, looked for another signature of nuclear testing—an increase in cancer rates. ”
Has nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Just more fear mongering. Well done.
slohrss29 – “If you listen to the Thorium guy’s TED conference, where I first heard of all of this, he explains how he got to the thorium solution for colonizing the moon. He’s no corporate shill, if anything, he was a paid government lackey. He thought he was onto something good for the planet, so he decided to push forward with it.”
Also, the last video on that page is a good one. It’s a little long but well worth the information. He gives you some science and politics behind why we went in the direction of fast breeder reactors. A big mistake.
I find it interesting the resistance towards Th reactors. I have no issue with solar and wind as long as they aren’t subsidized. I don’t know Darren, he seems like a nice guy, but I don’t want to pay for his solar panels. Before you all jump on that one, I don’t want the other forms subsidized either. No energy source is perfect but Th has lots of benefits. I think I’m done arguing it. You’ve seen both sides here and like any issue on this site, I’m not going to be able to change anyone’s pre programed mind.
Atmospheric A-Bomb testing the gift that keeps on giving.
Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks
Exposures 50 years ago still have health implications today that will continue into the future
Steven L. Simon, André Bouville and Charles E. Land
Prior to 1950, only limited consideration was given to the health impacts of worldwide dispersion of radioactivity from nuclear testing. But in the following decade, humanity began to significantly change the global radiation environment by testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. By the early 1960s, there was no place on Earth where the signature of atmospheric nuclear testing could not be found in soil, water and even polar ice.
Cancer investigators who specialize in radiation effects have, over the intervening decades, looked for another signature of nuclear testing—an increase in cancer rates.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/i131/Fallout-PDF
If you listen to the Thorium guy’s TED conference, where I first heard of all of this, he explains how he got to the thorium solution for colonizing the moon. He’s no corporate shill, if anything, he was a paid government lackey. He thought he was onto something good for the planet, so he decided to push forward with it.
Max – the video was too long for me to watch – I have FAP. Can you summarize? What were the effects on the wolves? Wolves are one of my favorite animals, and one of my family members was involved in a wolf project.
Chernobyl was a terrible disaster for people, animals, and the environment.
I’ve worked with radioactivity before, but luckily my dosimeter results never exceeded an exposure beyond guidelines.
That’s why I’m interested in technology that can use up radioactive waste. Some isotopes have really long half lives, and can outlast their container’s useful life. Or upgrades in design that can replace older, existing reactors.
The problems I have with nuclear energy are leak contingencies and the problem with waste disposal. I recall interviews with a scientist who assisted in the Fukishima disaster. He described how none of the workers would leave the site as directed. They felt it was their responsibility to do all they could to minimize the exposure to their countrymen. They waded through radioactive water to try to shut down the reactors. I thought they were very brave, but I sure wish there was technology that would have made human assistance unnecessary. I also recall there was a severe backlash against those who ignored warnings that the reactor was not safe from tsunamis.
IF nuclear energy production could consume its own waste, have multiple fail safes to prevent a catastrophic meltdown, and make it safe for the surrounding area, then I would support it. I am very interested in learning about the new technology.
As it is, most people do not want nuclear energy in their immediate neighborhood because of the risk.
Right now at every nuclear generating station across the US, 99 operating, there are tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies in cooling pools stored inside non-reinforced buildings.
A spent fuel pool fire in the US would have catastrophic consequences for many Americans.
A 2006 National Academy of Sciences study, for example, concluded that “under some conditions, a terrorist attack that partially or completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and the release of large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/spentfuel.html
The use of nuclear fission to boil water to make steam to spin turbines and generate electricity is insane. The are many other viable forms of energy available to spin turbines that do not produce highly radioactive waste.
PS
The use of thorium is no panacea.
The thorium fuel-cycle has the same problems as that of the uranium fuel-cycle: the highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies and where/how to store them safely.
bettykath – “slohrss29, Sorry. I believe the watchdogs. Corporate shills lie.”
And activists never do. Like I wrote earlier, if the Wright Bros. didn’t invent their airplane in 1903, we would never be able to do it today.
slohrss29, Sorry. I believe the watchdogs. Corporate shills lie.
continuation:
Important excerpt from NRC report indicating containment was not functional and evacuation could not have been successfully conducted.
September 25, 2013. Near-miss event at New York’s Nine Mile Point-1 reactor occurred in April 2013. NRC letter to Constellation Energy of September 23, 2013 proposing violation of regulations. Powerpoint explanation of event prepared by Dave Lochbaum of Union of Concerned Scientists. Important excerpt from NRC report indicating containment was not functional and evacuation could not have been successfully conducted.