Environment, International, Politics, Science

From Radioactive Reindeer To Radioactive Rainwater: Nuclear Accidents Continue To Contaminate The Environment In Europe and Asia

300px-Chernobyl_Disaster1280px-Fukushima_I_by_Digital_GlobeOne 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.

91 thoughts on “From Radioactive Reindeer To Radioactive Rainwater: Nuclear Accidents Continue To Contaminate The Environment In Europe and Asia”

  1. Realist, To me, foolishness is wasting time and money on Solyndra and not on real base load technologies like LFTR’s.

  2. Realist, Really? How do you know this? What examples can you recite that show this catastrophe? Have you looked at and understand the difference between a light water reactor and sodium based reactors are?

    “Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

    Coal – world average, 161

    Coal – China, 278

    Coal – USA, 15

    Oil – 36

    Natural Gas – 4

    Biofuel/Biomass – 12

    Peat – 12

    Solar/rooftop – 0.44-0.83

    Wind – 0.15

    Hydro – world, 0.10

    Hydro – world*, 1.4

    Nuclear – 0.04”

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

  3. Not if an earthquake hits in the area in which one is built Jim22. Foolishness is not something we should emulate.

  4. Realist – “How many humans can wind turbines and solar panels kill?”

    In the U.S. more than by nuclear plants.

  5. JT’s article and the link he posts seem to be a little confusing. I’m not sure I’m seeing the direct link to Chernobyl. It seems more like the increase in radiation is due to a long mushroom season.

    And what is with the sensational headline of radioactive rain water? He never even brings it up in his text. The only way to have rain water be radioactive is for there to be radioactive particles spewed into the air for water molecules to condense on. This still doesn’t make the water “radioactive”.

  7. prayerwarriorpsychicnot – “Bear with me, I am a science dunce. Does that mean if the ocean is contaminated with radiation, the rain is contaminated too? Is that why we are not supposed to drink rainwater? Is there a way of getting radiation out of water?”

    There is no such thing as radioactive water. Water can carry particles that are radioactive. These can be filtered out. Water that evaporates from a pool will be pure H2O. It is a common scare tactic to talk about radioactive water.

    Nuclear reactors are our cleanest form of portable base load energy. The real tragedy is why we went with the light water design (you can thank the govt and DOD) instead of LFTR design. LFTR’s run at atmospheric pressure and are inherently safe. slohrss29 put a link to Thorium which is the way to go. I can only plead with you all that you educate yourself on the Thorium design.

  8. Oh,oh! Not, ” because if,” rather, “because of”

    Is there a difference between the limit boundary of all possible mistakes and the limit boundary of all possible learning?

  9. I think that nuclear reactors should be prohibited because if the radiation damage their construction, use, and deconstruction causes.

    In getting rid of nuclear reactors because of the radiation damage that emanates from them, I suggest starting with the most destructive nuclear reactor that affects life on earth.

    That nuclear reactor is the Sun.

  10. It turns out that money is so addictive it has become more precious than life itself.

    1. Slohrss29 the problem with Thorium according to my friend that teaches Nuclear physics. (retired) is that it is fertile not fissile meaning that it is not economical because there is not much radioactive material in it –
      Thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium.
      It is fertile rather than fissile, and can only be used as a fuel in conjunction with a fissile material such as recycled plutonium.
      Thorium fuels can breed fissile uranium-233 to be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors.
      Molten salt reactors are well suited to thorium fuel, as normal fuel fabrication is avoided.

      The use of thorium as a new primary energy source has been a tantalizing prospect for many years. Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment. This is occurring preeminently in China, with modest US support

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/

  13. I have read where ours ain’t so great either. Kind of like the revolving gov door with the banks, it works the same with the NRC. Our systems continue to decay, and they just lower the safety requirements in response.

  14. The first comment regarding the manufacture of reactor engines and critical piping and valves is very important.

    Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. In the 1990s the Russian government invited our Nuclear Regulatory Agency to inspect many Soviet constructed nuclear power plants What they found was extraordinarily shoddy construction. One of our inspectors told me that “there was not a plumb line in the entire facility.” Wall thicknesses were inadequate to our standards, and welds were so poorly done that a breakdown was always a threat.

    I think it is not worthy to use scare tactics to undermine the concept and the United States approach to nuclear power generation. We do know how to prevent a Chernobyl from happening here. Waste disposal is still a concern.

  17. Now we can see all the reindeer glow. Better living through chemistry.

  18. Bear with me, I am a science dunce. Does that mean if the ocean is contaminated with radiation, the rain is contaminated too? Is that why we are not supposed to drink rainwater? Is there a way of getting radiation out of water?

  19. Rudolf the Radioluminescent Nosed Reindeer.

    This is terrible. Nuclear power is a long term problem to a short term issue. Despite the cost factor in operation, the potential damaging effects are tremendous if failure ensues. In my view the potential for failure might be minute but the cost in doing so is unacceptable.

    Most believed the radiation in Western Europe would decay from half lives, but concentrations increasing negates this.

Comments are closed.