Chernobyl – Page 5

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

C H E R N O B Y L

How much radiation was released? A Nukewatch Fact Sheet

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

The Chernobyl disaster’s explosions and 40-day-long fire that began in Ukraine in the former USSR April 26, 1986, spread radioactive materials to every country in the northern hemisphere—but how much? Vastly different estimates of total dispersed radiation have come from a variety of institutions, commissions, agencies and committees and are based on limited information about the amount of melted fuel and graphite left in the reactor’s wreckage in Ukraine.

• The disaster “[R]eleased a globe-girdling cloud of radiation that the US Lawrence Livermore National laboratory estimates to have exceeded 4.5 billion curies. Other estimates range as high as 9 billion curies.”

• “A staggering amount of radioactivity was released during the meltdown,” according to Joe Mangano in his book Mad Science. “Never before in history had this amount of radiation entered into the environment at one time.”

• In 2006, “The Other Chernobyl Report” (TORCH) concluded that the sum total of radioactivity released was 12 x 1018 Becquerels, or about 324.3 million curies.* TORCH estimates that about 30 percent of the reactor’s 190 tons of fuel was distributed over the reactor building and surrounding areas, about 1-2 percent was ejected into the atmosphere, and the reactor’s total inventory of radioactive noble gases (xenon and krypton) was released.

• In 2006, the Institute for Environmental and Energy Research in Maryland reported that, excluding noble gases, this largest single nonmilitary radiation release was estimated at 100 to 200 million curies.

• In 2005, the Chernobyl Forum, comprising more than 100 scientists, eight UN agencies and the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, found the total amount of radioactivity released over 10 days reached 14 “exabecquerels” (14 x 1018 Becquerels)—or 378.3 million curies.

• In 1996, Vladimir Chernousenko, a fellow of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and chief scientific supervisor of the “clean up” team inside the 10-kilometer zone around the Chernobyl reactor, wrote that independent experts have estimated that 80 percent of the reactor’s radioactivity escaped—about 6.4 billion curies.

• Time magazine reported in 1989 that perhaps “one billion or more” curies were released rather than the 50 to 80 million curies estimated by Russian authorities.

• The Russian government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claimed in a 1986 report that 50 million curies of radioactive debris, plus another 50 million curies of rare and inert gasses were discharged. MIT nuclear engineer Alexander Sich concluded, in his 500-page doctoral dissertation, that between 200 million and 250 million curies of radioactive material were released “in the first 10 days.” Sich said the complete core meltdown spewed “far worse contamination than previously reported.”

• In May 1986, Joseph Hendrie, a former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said, “They have dumped the full inventory of volatile fission products from a large power reactor into the environment. You can’t do any worse than that.” Likewise, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Kennedy Maize concluded in 1987 that “the core vaporized”—a reference to all 190 tons of fuel and its 9 billion curies of radioactive material.

• Geneticist Valery Soyfer, a molecular biologist in the former Soviet Union, analyzed the USSR’s 1986 report to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has since been condemned as a cover-up. Soyfer says that if only 100 million curies were vented, then world “back-ground radiation doubled at once.” In November 1987, nineteen months after Chernobyl, the US National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) doubled its estimate of the average “background” radiation to which people in the US are exposed—from 170 millirem (mR) to 360 mR per-year. In 2009, the NCRP again nearly doubled its estimated average annual dose, from 360 mR per-year to 620 mR.

The NCRP said the additional doses were “coming from exposure to medical tests such as body scans.” These medicinal scans are not safe. Some CT scans deliver the radiation equivalent of 400 chest X-rays. According to Professor David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University, “Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone.”

The article “Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT,” published in 2001 in American Journal of Roentgenology, concluded: “In the US, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually preformed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation.”

• The US Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago estimated in June 1986 that 30 percent of Chernobyl’s total radioactivity—three billion of an estimated nine billion curies—was released.

* One curie is a very large amount of ionizing radiation: 37 billion atomic disintegrations, or Becquerels, per- second. There are 37 billion Becquerels in every curie.

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Slow-Motion Cancer Pandemic

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

By Harvey Wasserman

In the 35 years since the March 28, 1979 explosion and meltdown at Three Mile Island, fierce debate has raged over whether humans were killed there. In 1986 and 2011, Chernobyl and Fukushima joined the argument. Whenever these disasters happen, there are those who claim that the workers, residents and military personnel exposed to radiation will be just fine.

Of course we know better. We humans won’t jump into a pot of boiling water. We’re not happy when members of our species start dying around us. But frightening new scientific findings have forced us to look at a larger reality: the bottom-up damage that radioactive fallout may do to the entire global ecosystem.

When it comes to our broader support systems, the corporate energy industry counts on us to tolerate the irradiation of our fellow creatures, those on whom we depend, and for us to sleep through the point of no return.

Case in point is a new Smithsonian report on Chernobyl, one of the most terrifying documents of the atomic age.

Written by Rachel Nuwer, “Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly,” cites recent field studies in which the normal cycle of dead vegetation rotting into the soil has been disrupted by the exploded reactor’s radioactive fallout.

“Decomposers — organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay — have also suffered from the contamination,” Nuwer writes. “These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil.”

The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor complex in Middletown, Pennsylvania, shown here in 2011, continues to generate electricity with its Unit 1 reactor. TMI was the scene of the 1979 meltdown of Unit 2, one of the worst nuclear power disasters in United States history.
Photo by Bradley C. Bower/AP.

Put simply: The micro-organisms that form the active core of our ecological bio-cycle have apparently been zapped, leaving tree trunks, leaves, ferns and other vegetation to sit eerily on the ground whole, essentially in a mummified state.

Reports also indicate a significant shrinkage of the brains of birds in the region and negative impacts on the insect and wildlife populations.

Similar findings surrounded the accident at Three Mile Island. Within a year, a three-reporter team from the Baltimore News-American cataloged massive radiation impacts on both wild and farm animals in the area. The reporters and the Pennsylvania Department of Health confirmed widespread damage to birds, bees and large kept animals such as horses, whose reproductive rate collapsed in the year after the accident.

Other reports also documented deformed vegetation and domestic animals being born with major mutations, including a dog born with no eyes and cats with no sense of balance. To this day, Three Mile Island’s owners claim no humans were killed by radiation there, an assertion hotly disputed by local down-winders.

Indeed, Dr. Alice Stewart established in 1956 that a single X-ray to a pregnant woman doubles the chance that her offspring will get leukemia. (See The Woman Who Knew Too Much by Gayle Green, University of Michigan Press, 1999.) During the accident at Three Mile Island, the owners crowed that the meltdown’s radiation was equivalent “only” to a single X-ray administered to all area residents.

Meanwhile, if the airborne fallout from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could do that kind of damage to both infants and the non-human population on land, how is Fukushima’s continuous gusher of radioactive water affecting the life support systems of our oceans?

In fact, samplings of 15 tuna caught off the coast of California indicate all were contaminated with fallout from Fukushima.

Instantly, as always, the industry deems such levels “harmless.” The obligatory comparisons to living in Denver, flying cross country and eating bananas automatically follow.

But what’s that radiation doing to the tuna? And to the krill, the phytoplankton, the algae, amoeba and all the other microorganisms on which the ocean ecology depends?

Cesium and its Fukushima siblings are already measurable in Alaska and northwestern Canada. They’ll hit California this year. The corporate media will mock those parents who are certain to show up at the beaches with radiation detectors. Concerns about the effect on children will be jovially dismissed. The doses will be deemed, as always, “too small to have any impact on humans.”

But reports of a “dead zone” thousands of miles into the Pacific do persist, along with disappearances of salmon, sardines, anchovies and other ocean fauna.

Of course, atomic reactors are not the only source of radioactive fallout. Atmospheric bomb testing from 1945 to 1963 raised background radiation levels throughout the ecosphere. Those isotopes are still with us.

Burning coal spews still more radiation into our air, along with mercury and other lethal pollutants. Fracking for gas draws toxins up from the earth’s crust.

Industry apologists say reactors can moderate the climate chaos caused by burning those fossil fuels. But fight

The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor complex in Middletown, Pennsylvania, shown here in 2011, continues to generate electricity with its Unit 1 reactor. TMI was the scene of the 1979 meltdown of Unit 2, one of the worst nuclear power disasters in United States history.

Photo by Bradley C. Bower/AP.

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

After 28 Years, Still No Solutions at Chernobyl

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014

Twenty-eight years have passed since technicians at Chernobyl’s Unit 4 reactor accidentally set off an uncontrolled reaction early on the morning of April 26, 1986, releasing a huge radioactive plume that has affected some three billion people (and counting). Yet officials are still struggling to find a containment solution for the almost 200 tons of fuel — uranium and its highly radioactive fission by-products — and other highly radioactive materials that remain buried in the destroyed building. At least five tons of reactor fuel were released during the explosions and subsequent fire.

Overwhelmed and unprepared for the magnitude of the disaster, Soviet officials threw large amounts of concrete and human power at the problem. Over half a million workers, many of them “volunteers” (including political prisoners and former dissidents) were involved in clean-up efforts, including construction of the initial concrete “sarcophagus” that still covers the site three decades later. Bulldozers, cranes and other equipment that was too contaminated to remove were simply buried in place.

Though authorities declared at the time that it would last “for eternity,” the sarcophagus began leaking from almost the first day it was completed. Workers remaining onsite are tasked with pumping out radioactive rainwater that has been in contact with fuel rods inside. The Bulletin of Atomic the Scientists noted in September 1992 that “[t]he sarcophagus began cracking soon after it was built and must be strengthened or replaced. To complicate matters, the sarcophagus is also sinking into the earth, and the ground water is rather near the surface…”

Last year, a section of the roof near the destroyed reactor collapsed, releasing radiation into the atmosphere.

In 1995, the “Group of 7” nations agreed to finance a more long-term solution for dealing with the volatile disaster site in exchange for Ukraine’s cooperation in closing the two reactors that operated at the Chernobyl site until 2000. Finally, almost 20 years later, construction of a 20 million pound, $1.5 billion arch, designed to contain radioactive materials in the event of further degradation of the sarcophagus, is now half complete. The arch is designed to last 100 years, by which point officials hope to have a more permanent repository in place for the high-level waste. One proposal involves removing it from the disaster site in order to avoid contaminating the water supply of Kiev’s three million residents.

It is still unclear where Ukraine will find funding for this “final” solution, and the technology for how it will be achieved has yet to be developed. Artur Korneyev, the radiation specialist who first alerted Western countries to the urgency of the problems with the sarcophagus, has doubts that long-term containment can ever be achieved. As he told the New York Times April 27, “There is not the technology available to access this fuel inside the unit. It’s really difficult because the pathways are obstructed.”

Of course, containing the fuel rods is just one of many daunting problems regional governments and the rest of the world must combat as a result of this particular nuclear power disaster. Belarus and Ukraine have spent more than an estimated $250 billion each in dealing with the aftermath of the catastrophe. No one knows the true magnitude of the deaths and health effects of the radiation release; one study has attributed more than one million deaths globally to Chernobyl. Only twenty percent of children in Belarus are considered well by official standards since the accident. And the genetic damage to the human population will persist, probably not peaking for many generations.

In early May, former tennis star Elena Baltacha became the latest person to die of cancer probably caused by the Chernobyl meltdown. The thirty-year-old athlete was just three years old when the accident happened at the reactor 90 miles from her home. She was diagnosed at the age of 19 with a chronic liver disease, which forced her to stay heavily medicated just to function on the tennis court. Her primary liver cancer was rare in the United Kingdom, where she lived for most of her life.

Researchers are only beginning to understand the human health effects of Chernobyl’s radiation, let alone the effects on the ecosystem. A study released this spring by researchers at the University of South Carolina and Universite Paris-Sud shows that because radiation harms microorganisms, the dead trees, plants and other organic matter affected by the radiation around Chernobyl do not decay nearly as quickly as those elsewhere. This creates an eerily intact landscape with 28 years’ worth of dead plant material that they fear will act as a radioactive tinderbox in the event of a forest fire, releasing plumes of radio-toxic smoke to population centers.

Despite Chernobyl’s legacy of terror, reactor operators around the world are still pushing increasingly unpopular plans for new nuclear power facilities. This April 26, over 1,000 people marched in the annual Chernobyl Way rally in Belarus, demanding a halt to construction of that country’s first nuclear power reactor, the Lukashenka facility in Astravets. Activists were detained after the rally, including one man — Yury Rubtsou — who engaged in a hunger strike to protest police brutality and judicial outrage during his 30 days in jail. Rubtsou was reportedly detained for wearing a T-shirt reading “Lukashenka, go away,” which the authorities seized. — ASP

— San Francisco Bay View, Feb. 25, 2012; Radio Free Europe, Nov. 04, 2013; Smithsonian magazine, Mar. 14; Live Science, Mar. 24; New York Times, Apr. 27; Charter 97, Apr. 28, May 26, & May 27; EcoWatch (Harvey Wasserman), May 4; the Express, May 5; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 5, 2014

January 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Unnecessary, Uneconomic, Uninsurable, Unevacuable and Unsafe

Why Atomic Energy Stinks Worse Than You Thought

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2013-2014

By Ralph Nader

It has been over two years since the earthquake and tsunami that brought about the nuclear reactor crisis in Fukushima — the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. The situation at the six reactors is still grim. Four of the reactors are damaged. Hundreds of tons of contaminated groundwater are reportedly seeping into the ocean every day. Nearly 83,000 people were displaced from their homes in the approximately 310 square mile exclusion zones. On Oct. 9, 2013, an accident resulted in six workers being doused in radioactive water. Accidents and mishaps at the Fukushima site are regular occurrences. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has now asked the world community for help in containing the ongoing Fukushima disaster, as it continues to spiral out of control.

Earlier this week, I participated in a panel discussion in New York City called “The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Ongoing Lessons.” The event featured notable long-time experts on nuclear technology discussing the crisis in Fukushima and the current state of the heavily subsidized nuclear industry in the United States. The panel participants were former US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Peter Bradford, former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, and nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen.

Mr. Bradford presented a detailed power point that showed how competing forms of energy already are leading to the decline of the nuclear industry.

The panel discussed safety concerns regarding the Indian Point nuclear power plant located about 30 miles from New York City. Indian Point has long been rife with safety problems and its location near an earthquake fault is a source of great concern for many New York residents.

In the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission determined that a class-nine nuclear power accident could contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania and render much of it uninhabitable. A nuclear disaster at Indian Point would threaten the entire population of New York City and its outlying metropolitan area. The continued existence and operation of Indian Point is like playing a game of Russian Roulette with the lives and homes of the nearly 20 million people who live within a 50 mile radius of the reactor. Consider the difficulty New Yorkers have simply commuting to and from their workplaces during rush hour, and imagine the horror of a mandatory evacuation due to a nuclear emergency at Indian Point. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that a serious accident could, in addition to massive casualties, “cost ten to 100 times more than Fukushima’s disaster” which would be in the trillions of dollars.

If Indian Point were closed today, there is enough surplus energy capacity to last the state until 2020 as alternative energy sources are developed and deployed. Governor Andrew Cuomo has called for the shutdown of Indian Point, as did Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate. A principle reason is that an emergency evacuation of the population up to 50 miles around these two nukes is impossible.

So what’s the delay? Mainly, resistance from the nuclear industry and a compliant regulatory agency. The NRC has faltered in its watchdog role by acting to protect and even bolster the dangerous, expensive and unnecessary nuclear industry. The industry’s latest claim is that it avoids greenhouse gases. But as physicist Amory Lovins says, if the investment in nuclear reactors is shifted to renewables and energy conservation, it will produce less demand and more environmentally benign energy by far, and with more jobs.

Anti-nuclear advocates have warned against potential dangers such as earthquakes for decades. Although a new nuclear power reactor has not been ordered and built in the US since 1974, there are currently 65 nuclear stations operating 100 reactors here — many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, many of them still not in compliance with NRC fire prevention regulations, all of them significant national security risks. Under President Obama, the first two nuclear reactors since 1978 were authorized to be built at the Vogtle site near Atlanta, Georgia. Commissioner Jaczko was the lone dissenter in the 4-1 NRC approval vote.

To truly understand the cost of nuclear energy, one must consider the absurdity of the uranium fuel cycle itself. It begins with mining and its deadly uranium tailings, then the fabrication and refinement of the fuel, the risky transport of these rods to the multi-shielded dome-like reactors where they are installed, and then firing up the core so it goes critical with a huge amount of radioactivity. Dealing with volatile nuclear reactions requires flawless operation. And then there is the storage and guarding of hot radioactive wastes and contaminated materials that persist for 250,000 years. No permanent site has been located and licensed for that lengthy containment.

What is the end purpose of this complex and expensive chain of events? Simply to boil water — to generate steam to turn turbines to produce electricity.

With all the technological advancements in energy efficiency, solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, there are better and more efficient ways to meet our electricity needs without burdening future generations with deadly waste products and risking the radioactive contamination of entire regions — should anything go wrong.

It is telling that Wall Street, which rarely considers the consequences of gambling on a risk, will not finance the construction of a new reactor without a full loan guarantee from the US government. Nuclear power is also uninsurable in the private insurance market. The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 requires taxpayers to cover almost all the recovery, decontamination and compensation costs if a meltdown should occur.

No other industry that produces electricity poses such a great national security risk should sabotage or malfunction occur. No other means of generating electricity can produce such long-lasting catastrophic damage and mayhem from one unpredictable accident. No other form of energy is so loaded with the silent violence of radioactivity.

Nuclear energy is unnecessary, uninsurable, uneconomic, unevacuable and, most importantly, unsafe. The fact that it continues to exist at all is a result of a ferocious lobby, enlisting the autocratic power of government that will not admit that its product is unfit for use in the modern world. Let’s not allow the lessons of Fukushima to be ignored.

— Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and Green Party presidential candidate, is a lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, The Menace of Atomic Energy, and he contributed to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. This article appeared in Counterpunch Oct. 14, 2013.

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch