OPPOSE NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR SASKATCHEWAN
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 October 2020
Sunday, 20 September 2020
No Debate on Nuclear Power for Me
My Story:
I was introduced to nuclear physics through my grade two teacher. Not that she taught any physics but she had a huge atomic table that she pulled down like a window blind over written exam questions on the blackboard.
I was fascinated with by the entire concept of elements – that these were the tiny bits that made up the entire world. That all the objects I knew including things that I drank, could be literally boiled down to these 90 + elements. Later in grade 7 or 8, the numbers on the squares acquired meaning and I was further enthralled by atoms and the adding or subtracting protons and neutrons to an atoms.
In high school I was a “brain”, by today’s terms, a geek or nerd. All it seemed to do is scare people off. To add to the social unacceptability, I read Azimov and Heinlein science fiction long before it was popular.
In an honours physics course in university, I found my place amongst other students who dreamt of interstellar travel and atomic power. One time when we were talking about nuclear power, our physics professor brought up the issue of nuclear waste. In 1962, we students (it was a small honours class) all thought he was a bit of a fuddy duddy. Clearly the smart people working on nuclear power waste would get waste figured out before it was too big of a problem.
Besides raising the problem of nuclear waste, Dr. Kendal maintained that the building of nuclear power plants was largely for the production of nuclear bombs. As he and I realized that my career was not going to be in physics, I spent more time with him simply in order to understand enough to pass. I thought that he seemed overly cynical but agreed with his position about the use of nuclear bombs. At the end of the school year, he gave me a black and silver lapel pin with the CND symbol which later became the “peace symbol”.
I fell for the “electricity too cheap to monitor” and “taming of the atom” literature. I supported the idea of “reprocessing” and “recycling” that swept the 1960’s and early 1970’s. When I found out that both of these processes exacerbate the problem of nuclear waste, I felt betrayed, upset that the ideas and the industry that I supported could be so fraudulent. It was 1976 when I revised my support saying “if they find an answer to the waste, I might change my mind”. The more I read of the history and science of nuclear power, the more appalled I become that our generation has allowed the world to become so polluted.
As I write this, I think of my brand new grandchild – and all the other brand new babies that I’ve been meeting. And I couldn’t help feeling angry – angry that this still needs to be said, that the nefarious nuclear industry has politicians in its thrall. For decades our governments have sunk billions of dollars into research, construction, and followed up with public commissions to decide what to do about nuclear power or its waste.
What it doesn’t have in its thrall are investors and the financial markets. In fact, they have not invested private money in any substantial amounts since 1973. Wall street will not back the building of new nuclear power plants, no matter what size they are, so the industry is approaching governments where MPs can spend taxpayer money and try to look like they are doing “something for the environment”.
I’ve debated, taught or spoken about parts of this topic over the years since becoming interested. While working as the Executive Director of Physicians for Global Survival (Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War) what started as a series of information pamphlets became a book, From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You.
There is a risk to swimming against the nuclear tide. The nuclear industry has such political power to withstand criticism that a new generation of politicians have been snowballed into supporting it. The nuclear business includes nuclear media control.
John Gofman, born in 1918, became both a physician and a physicist. He was recruited to the Manhattan project and, working under Oppenheimer, he was the first person to separate plutonium. He went on to discover uranium-232, uranium-233 and protactinium-232 & -233. When the Manhattan project closed and scientists moved elsewhere, Dr. Gofman returned to a faculty position at Berkeley, California. In 1963, he became head of the Biomedical Research Division for the Livermore National Laboratory. In that position he was constantly directed to find no fault with nuclear power. In 1969, after he discovered a connection between radiation, chromosomal abnormalities and cancer, he co-published a paper asserting that “even low dose radiation harmed humans”.
He said, “I realized that the entire nuclear program was based on a fraud – namely that there is a ‘safe’ amount of radiation, a permissible dose that wouldn’t hurt anyone.” After his research funding dried up, John went on to discover the lipids HDL & LDL, and demonstrated their role in heart disease. For this feat, he was honoured in 2007 as the “Father of Clinical Lipidology”.
When this incredible man died, discoverer of four elements and two biological molecules, the New York Times obituary called him a “nuclear gadfly”.
I’m a rural family physician. I am a jack or jill of all trades and a master or mistress of many. I know what the nuclear industry thinks of me because I see it on social media. Some of the names are unprintable.
Is nuclear power “green”?
The nuclear power reactor itself emits no greenhouse gases when it is operating. To be “green” however would mean that it should have “little or no environmental impact”. There is more to nuclear power than the power plant. Nuclear power includes mining, refining, enrichment, transportation from mine to refinery, transportation from refinery to manufacturing site, from manufacturing to nuclear power reactor. The energy required for enrichment itself would power a small city and must be continual. The amount of CO2 produced during the pouring of concrete, the smelting of the steel and the transportation of all these products has been estimated to require twenty years of clean operating to payback.
Although the definition of “green” doesn’t mention waste, I would contend that any source of energy which produces waste for which there is no storage, no recycling, and which exists for hundreds of thousands of years cannot be classified as “green”? Since it produces more waste than it produces energy, can it be called green? Advertising itself as green is fraudulent.
Can nuclear power address climate change? There are currently 440 nuclear power plants in operation in the world. At full capacity[1], they would supply about 4% of the world’s energy.
But nuclear, like hydro, produces only electrical energy.
Nuclear proponents often compare the CO2 footprint, health impacts and waste with coal. So let’s try to replace the electricity gained from coal with that from nuclear power. How many nuclear power plants do we need? To increase the 10% number to even 50% of electrical power, we need about 2200! If we can produce 50% of the world's electrical power with nuclear, we would still be less than 10% of the total energy used!
According to the World Nuclear Association, there are a total of 55 nuclear power plants under construction today. Since it takes an average of ten years to build a single NPP, we would be needing to be building these 2000 NPP now. Aside from the question of whether we have enough technicians, physicists, and atomic workers to do the job, do we have enough places in the world to build them? Regular nuclear power plants need a lot of space, must be situated beside bodies of water for coolants, and have a secure electrical source of their own.
Of these 55, several should be given special attention:
1. The Shidaowan Chinese reactor is the first fourth generation gas-cooled reactor in the world – it is expected to go on-line as a demonstration, so it planned to have a low output of electricity. No one knows if it will really work. Canada put millions of dollars into two Maple reactors which cannot be operated.
2. One of the major expenses in building a reactor is the length of time required so the Finnish Olkiluoto 3, a third generation reactor, was sold to the government as a “fast build” to decrease the costs. It was originally expected to go on-line in 2008, four years after the soil was turned. It will not be ready for loading with fuel until 2022.
3. Barakah1 is being built in the UAE. One of the problems with nuclear power is proliferation of nuclear weapons. With its sun, wind and petroleum, I suspect that the only reason for the UAE to get a nuclear reactor is to produce nuclear weapons for the Arab world.
4. The Vogtle 3 is one of the only two US NPP in construction – it has been in construction for over ten years, was the cause of a Westinghouse bankruptcy, and still there are questions about its opening date. A news release from May 2020 stated that “it will be extremely challenging for the two Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors to be completed by November 2021 (for Unit 3) and November 2022 (for Unit 4)”.
Besides the length of time required, nuclear power plants average in the billions of dollars each. Neither the waste nor the metal used in the construction of the power plant can be recycled; there is no way to neutralize or turn off the process of waste creation once the power has been turned on. The waste will continue for thousands of years after it leaves the nuclear power plant.
*********
I have said that I would not debate nuclear power and this is why. It is not green and it simply cannot come on-line fast enough with enough power to make even a dent in CO2 emissions. Had we all the will in the world to support nuclear power, technology could not rise to the occasion and given the on-going waste problem, it shouldn’t even try.
*********
[1] They are rarely working at full capacity and some, more than others, are shut down for repairs, refurbishing or recharging.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Galileo and Nuclear Power: fact and fiction
In 1610, Galileo Galilei joined Copernicus in describing the sun as centre of the solar system. By 1616, he was called to the Inquisition and was forced to recant. Fortunately for us, his denial did not change the facts.
Today the same situation exists between the nuclear industry and the facts of its radioactive legacy.
The nuclear industry insists that low levels of radiation are not harmful to human health. Physicians know better. And so does most of the public. Background natural radiation is dangerous – eg. radon in basements and cosmic rays from the sun.
The US National Research Council came to the conclusion in 2008, after five previous reports, that “current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.(1)” In lay terms, this means that there is no dose that is completely safe, just different levels of risk.
There has been more than enough evidence linking radiation and effects on health.
In 1954, the US dropped a bomb on the Bikini Atoll irradiating some of the Marshall Islanders and more than 7000 square miles of Pacific ocean. The United States funded a Nuclear Claims Tribunal which recognizes thirty-six conditions for which citizens can be compensated. Most of the conditions are cancer but mental retardation is included(2).
In 1985, the UK government established the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) to respond to anecdotal reports of higher rates of childhood leukemia near the nuclear installation at Sellafield. The authors note a “serious excess of childhood cancer might be related to radioactive emissions from the nuclear facilities” but concluded that the emissions measured at the facilities were too small to explain this finding(3).
In 2008, the Germans concluded a study that provided compelling evidence of an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia, and residential proximity to a nuclear power plant. The authors state that these findings are compelling, that the elevated risk does indeed exist and that it is related to the nuclear facilities. Then they concluded that “the reason for the elevated risk is unexplained, as the levels of radioactive emissions from these facilities are considered too low to explain the increase in childhood leukemia”(4).
It should be noted that in neither the COMARE study nor the German study did the researchers claim that there was no connection between the power plants and the effect upon health.
Closer to home, the Port Hope Synopsis report by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission includes a study(5) which makes the following statements: “there was an excess of childhood cancer deaths”, "lung cancer mortality was of interest because of the increased incidence observed amongst women" and "increased mortality from circulatory disease, including ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and disease of arteries". None of the increases were statistically significant. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states that there was no ill effects of the radioactivity in Port Hope. Researchers would conclude that “more research is needed”.
Where are the voices of physicians? In December 1998, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War adopted a Swiss proposal in opposition to nuclear power(6). Their affiliates, Physicians for Global Survival (Canada), and Physicians for Social Responsibility (US) eventually followed. In 1982, reconfirmed in 2004, the Canadian Medical Association's position is that: “there is at present no conclusive evidence of a measurable increase, in the long or short term, of adverse effects due specifically to radiation in populations thus exposed”.
Just as the Church defended its long held belief that the sun circled the earth against scientific evidence, so the nuclear industry defends the myth that it is clean green and safe for human consumption. It's time for the CMA to reconsider. Or keep defending fiction.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Moratorium on Nuclear Power
Finally, Physicians for Global Survival takes a stand. We aren't calling for a cease and desist order for nuclear power, but we are calling for a moratorium on new nuclear power plants. And here is the statement:
With its United States affiliate, Physicians for Global Survival today called for a moratorium on new nuclear reactors in Canada and a suspension of operations at the nuclear reactors on fault lines. PGS cited the medical risks associated with radiation exposure and stressed that, unlike x-rays which expose a person for a limited time, radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants expose entire populations and are the “gifts that keep on giving”.
"There is no safe level of radiation exposure," said Michael Dworkind, MD, immediate past president of Physicians for Global Survival. “Only recently scientists discovered that background natural radon was responsible for an estimated 20% of lung cancers in Canadians; the same scientists estimate that 20% of childhood leukaemia occur as a result of exposure to natural radiation.” “We cannot continue to expose human populations to increased radiation from nuclear power plants,” he said.
“Human fallibility being what it is, the only way to avoid nuclear accidents is to not build nuclear reactors," said Dr. Birkett, a long time member of the board of Physicians for Global Survival.
According to the US National Academy of Sciences, any exposure to radiation increases a person's risk of developing cancer. In the case of the Japanese Fukushima reactors, the primary radionuclides of concern are:
Tritium, which is indistinguishable from hydrogen as far as biological systems are concerned and can be incorporated into every cell of a body.
Iodine-131, which causes thyroid cancer when absorbed through inhalation and ingestion.
Cesium-137, which behaves like potassium and when ingested spreads throughout the body. At Chernobyl, Cesium-137 was taken up by lichen and plants, and animals which consumed those plants became radioactive.
Strontium-90, which is deposited in bone and teeth where it remains for decades; it causes bone cancer, and leukaemia.
Plutonium-239, which causes lung cancer and remains a severe threat for thousands of years.
Cesium-137 and Iodine-131 are fairly easy to measure and were used to mark the extent of the Chernobyl radiation contamination, but, in fact, there are more than 47 radioactive elements being released during the Fukushima disaster. Physicians are concerned that external radiation exposure does not adequately account for the effects of internal emitters.
Medical treatment for radiation exposure is limited, at best. Iodine pills provide only limited protection against the absorption of Iodine-131, mostly in children. It does not offer protection against gamma irradiation from Iodine-131.
The public health risk from a large radioactive release from Canadian reactors near densely populated areas around Toronto is substantial.
Physicians for Global Survival is also deeply concerned about the financial effects of an accident at a Canadian nuclear power plant because the federal government would be liable for the environmental and human costs.
Physicians for Global Survival applauds the increased safety measures that have been taken by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission but maintains that nuclear power cannot be made completely safe. “Clean renewable energy is the only sustainable option” said Dr. Richard Denton, President.
Physicians for Global Survival calls upon the Government of Canada and the Canadian Safety Nuclear Commission to:
Implement a moratorium on new nuclear reactor licensing and design certification without delay.
Suspend operations at nuclear reactors on fault lines while a safety review is conducted.
Establish a rolling stewardship for spent fuel pools and onsite fuel and waste storage for all reactors which will engage the expertise of current operators for their lifetimes and that of their successors for generations.
Eliminate subsidies for new reactors, especially loan guarantees, and prioritize safe, clean renewable energy sources that can meet today's energy needs.
Monday, 21 March 2011
No Immediate Danger
No Immediate Danger!
Physicians usually weigh risks and benefits when they expose patients to radioactivity through x-rays, CT scans and radioisotopes but recently even they were shocked to find out that the low levels used to examine the arteries of the heart increased the risk of cancer.
Industry and government repeat the mantra that there is “no immediate risk to human health”. Physicians for Global Survival agrees that there is no immediate danger to individual health or life from radioactivity unless the amount is enormous or prolonged.
Humans are constantly exposed to natural radioactivity from the sun, radon in the air, and naturally occurring radioactive ions such as carbon-14. People mostly don't get cancer, auto-immune diseases such as lupus and rosacea or have miscarriages or children with birth defects. There is no doubt in the minds of medical experts, however, that increasing the global burden of radioactivity will increase the incidence of cancer.
What is happening in Japan is happening to our biosphere because wind and water travel the globe. There is a complex soup of elements released by the damaged nuclear power reactors but three are of particular concern.
Tritium, a gas, enters the environment around most nuclear power plants by planned releases or in accidents. Tritium is bound with oxygen in water which makes it extremely dangerous. Living organisms cannot distinguish between radioactive water and normal water and will absorb the radioactive water to use as biological building blocks, enzymes and genetic material. Tritium has a half-life of twelve years which means that 2 tonnes released to the atmosphere becomes 1 tonne after 12 years.
Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days releasing beta and gamma radiation in its decay. One of the risks of treatment of cancer of thyroid with this isotope is an increase of other cancers. It is especially toxic to children and fetuses because it targets the normal thyroid in growing animals. The damage to the thyroid can be mitigated by taking potassium iodide but there is no protection for the full body gamma radiation effects.
Cesium-137 is unarguably the biggest threat. Cells treat it like potassium, allowing it to literally bathe every cell in the body and concentrate it in soft tissues, muscles and bones. Double threat cesium-137 decays by beta emission to barium-137m which emits gamma radiation before becoming stable barium 137. It can affect enzymes and DNA, disrupt normal cellular function, affect germ cells and increase the risk of cancer. The United States Environmental Protection Agency says that once dispersed in the environment, cesium-137 “is impossible to avoid”. It has a half-life of 30 years.
Physicians for Global Survival and its parent body, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, have taken the position that nuclear power cannot be made safe enough to risk the health of this planet. Dispersal of background radiation will inevitably affect human health, and the health of succeeding generations. “No immediate danger” is a short-sighted perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)