Category: Why Are We Afraid of Nuclear Power?

Why Nuclear Should Be Part of Australia’s Energy Mix

Here are 8 good reasons. Most of this post comes from a simple pamphlet I recently put together.

  1. Nuclear Saves Habitat, Jobs and Farming Land

We could be replacing coal-fired power stations with Nuclear Power on the dirty old coal sites. A high proportion of the skilled workforce could be retained with decent salaries. Current transmission infrastructure would replace the need to build new transmission lines, saving money, resources such as copper while saving even more habitat and our best food producing soils. It is our land and its habitat that is sequestering most of the carbon dioxide that Australia produces. See my 2 previous blogs for more information.

2. Nuclear Power is a Low Carbon Energy Source

3. Nuclear Power is Safe

Nuclear activity and its ionising radiation are part of the natural world and were there when life began. Biology had to learn how to live safely with low and moderate levels of radiation. Otherwise, it would not have survived. The problem is with neither the physics nor the biology but with ourselves. While like all animals we are naturally protected and have no need to worry about immersion in moderate radiation, we have learned how to build instruments and make measurements that scare us. We put regulations in place that are designed to protect us from risks that nature has already covered.- Wade Allison Nov 2023

The Cellular Changes Needed To Initiate Cancer Have Not Been Observed  at Low Dose Rates. At least 6 to 8 of specific cellular changes must occur for cancer to result. The “Hit Theory” of DNA mutation as a cause of cancer is way out of date and not applicable.

4. Nuclear Waste is the Power Source of the Future

We do know how to bury it safely for ever – Nature has shown us how and some countries are doing so now.  BUT, what a waste!

5. Materials Needed to Manufacture Power Systems

The metals used in solar and wind power and transmission lines are becoming scarcer.  It takes more than a decade to open up a new mine but we do not even have enough mineral resources to build the first generation of renewables. Recycling is very energy inefficient.  

Recent evaluations of all the materials needed for the Energy Transition indicate a shortage of many materials. We do not even have sufficient minerals in the ground- Simon Michaux.  We must be careful with all the resources we have whether minerals, money, or biodiversity. We must never forget how much nature is doing to look after us.

6. We Need to Decarbonise More Sectors Than Just Electricity

7. The Energy Produced from a Power System Compared to the Energy Used to Produce that Power System

Until a solar farm can produce enough energy to make itself again, it shouldn’t be called renewable. If it takes too much energy to make and use a power source, it is not a viable long-term solution. Most calculations of money or energy costs do not include all of the  system costs.

Why does Nuclear Power have such a high EROI? ANSWER: Because of the orders of magnitude higher energy density of the fuels it can use such as uranium and thorium.

8. The Future

When should Australia introduce nuclear energy? Are we Australians ready yet? The false fear of radiation has even slowed our ability to even look after our low dose waste from research facilities and hospitals to a ridiculous extent. Most of the cost and time delays that effect the building of nuclear power plants around the world do not arise from the reactor itself but from ordinary engineering works. Australia’s recent history with big infrastructure projects including Snowy 2.0 is not impressive. It seems many big projects have very big cost and time overruns.

However, the first stage of the process will take time that we shouldn’t waste. Stage One involves removing the current bans both nationally and state by state. By the time we finish this first stage, we will be in a better position to judge what to build and purchase.

Wish to learn more? See early posts and become a subscriber.

South Korea Monitors Fukushima Release

Decades ago, I worked as an environmental scientist based in Hong Kong. I still stay in touch with some of my staff, who now are very experienced in their careers. I had heard that Hong Kong people were being warned about buying seafood, particularly seafood from Japan due to the release of water from Fukushima. I received an interesting article yesterday and quote from a section of it in the original Chinese together with the translation. I have omitted the first paragraphs. The references vary in their language but Note 2 is in English.

I jump to the last paragraphs examining the above 7:30 report.

當然，你依然可以反駁，日方的數據是假的。那麼你也可以看看韓國新聞。根據昨日韓聯社的消息，上周四日本排放核廢水後，韓國政府已在該海域30個點位進行緊急輻射測試，所有樣本均符合安全標準，而截至目前為止，韓國內的海鮮或進口海產尚未測到輻射。 （注2）

事實上，韓國從來不信日本，甚至不信國際原子能總署，所以7月以來，韓國已在200個海洋點位自己做水質監測，日本也無任歡迎。但奇怪的是，中国居然沒有像韓國般，實事求是加入監測行列，只堅持嚇鬼不動搖地在大陸、香港做「大內宣」，讓「財經作家」那種寫手散播假資訊，唯恐天下不亂地製造恐慌。

「因此我們可以假定」，中央政府正在下一盤很大的棋，旨在「給中国人民上一課科普」，引導民眾搶購可測試核輻射的蓋格計數器，之後驀然回首，才發現自己家的輻射原來比東京強900多倍（注3）——也許是中国建材問題——背後的理由實在太令人暖心了。

“Of course, you can still argue that the Japanese figures are fake. Then you can also check out Korean news. According to Yonhap news yesterday, the South Korean government has conducted emergency radiation tests at 30 points in the sea after Japan discharged nuclear waste water last Thursday, all samples met safety standards, and so far no radiation has been detected in seafood or imported seafood in South Korea. (Note 2)

In fact, South Korea has never believed in Japan, or even the International Atomic Energy Agency, so since July, South Korea has done its own water quality monitoring at 200 ocean points, and Japan is not welcome. But strangely enough, China has not joined the monitoring ranks like South Korea, just insist on scaring ghosts and doing “big internal propaganda” in mainland China and Hong Kong, letting writers like “financial writers” spread false information, lest the world will cause panic.

“So we can assume” that the central government is playing a big game of chess, aimed at “teaching the Chinese people a lesson in popular science”, guiding the public to snatch up Geiger counters that test nuclear radiation, and then looking back to discover that their own home’s radiation is more than 900 times stronger than Tokyo (note 3) – perhaps China’s building materials problem – the reason behind it is too heartening.”

Notes (References):

1 https://t.ly/Vdvih

2 https://t.ly/BjuD4

3 https://t .ly/g7arY

As expected, the South Koreans have not been able to find fault with seafood or seawater. One has to question the motives of countries who spread fear about radiation when these same countries build and sell nuclear power plants. Is it a question answered as it so often is “Just follow the money trail”?

The IAEA and Fukushima Water Release

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created in 1957 in response to the deep fears and expectations generated by the discoveries and diverse uses of nuclear technology. The Agency was set up as the world’s “Atoms for Peace” organization within the United Nations family. From the beginning, it was given the mandate to work with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.

The IAEA’s headquarters are in Vienna, Austria. It also has two regional offices located in Toronto, Canada (since 1979) and Tokyo, Japan (since 1984). The Agency runs laboratories specialized in nuclear technology in Vienna and Seibersdorf, Austria, and in Monaco.

Due to the involvement of both my husband and I in the regulation of uranium mining in Australia, we have a few friends who have worked for the IAEA in the laboratories and in the cleanup of mining areas in parts of the old Soviet Union. One of them had his office across the corridor from the man most responsible for the data on Chernobyl. David did a short consultancy in the Vienna offices. The scientists of the IAEA take their responsibility for nuclear safety very seriously and come from dozens of nations.

When Japan proposed the water discharge from the Fukushima nuclear plant, the IAEA examined the strategy very closely and gave its blessing but insisted that the discharge be monitored very carefully.  Japan gave itself a tough standard of 1500 Bq/L knowing that the WHO standard for drinking water was 10,000Bq/L. A lot of data is available online which I have viewed.  It is possible to see the data for every tank on site. Some of the tanks containing water cleaned up early in the process contain a fraction too much caesium isotopes.  This water will be cleaned up again before release. The IAEA has a website that shows the monitoring data during the discharge in real time.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/tepco-data

A snapshot in time (as I am writing) is shown below:

Green dots show that the data indicates that everything is OK. A red dot would indicate that the nuclear company, Tepco, should take action. A grey dot shows that a pump is not operating.

The water after dilution is shown as 207 Bq/L, way below the level Japan set for itself and only 2% of the WHO drinking water standard. It is about this amount each time I looked at the data.

What fascinated me was that seawater has slightly more radiation than the treated water as measured in cps. Although details are not given, Geiger type counters probably do not pick up tritium as the beta rays are so weak.  These measurements are used to ensure other radioactive elements such as caesium are not being discharged. As the data shows, the levels in both the treated water and the seawater are very low.

Help, It Rained, and I Have Millions of Tritium Atoms in My Hair!

In my last couple of posts, when trying to picture what enormous numbers mean, it was shown that 3 big teaspoons of natural rain falling on my head in Australia would contain about a million tritium atoms. This sounds really scary but as I will gradually show, it is of no concern. Washing our hair would increase the amount.

Tritium forms in our atmosphere every day when cosmic rays hit gases in the air, mostly nitrogen. It is washed down into rivers and streams to the ocean as well as falling directly into the ocean. Tritium forms a minute part of the background radiation that surrounds us always. Life evolved on Earth at a time when background radiation levels were 5, maybe even 10 times higher than today. All life with its complex biochemistry deals with low radiation levels so well, that there was never a need to be able to sense radiation and hence avoid it.

Tritium is even less dangerous than most sources of ionizing radiation. It gently sends out low energy beta rays. Too much of anything can kill us. High dose radiation is dangerous, and we need protection from it.  The bigger the ray particle and/or the energy involved, determines just how harmful various forms of radiation are. Tritium’s beta rays are low energy electrons. It has a half life of about twelve and a half years. The rays are so weak, they cannot penetrate the skin. If swallowed most of it leaves as water in our urine within a day or so. If tritium water vapour is breathed in the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water is 10,00, it leaves again within minutes.

This is an ironic look at statements made out to be scientific fact. Most of the fear about radiation is not true and certainly not scientific fact.

I am still scared! A million sounds such a lot!

If you read my earlier posts on tritium, you may recall that 1 TU (Tritium Unit) is one tritium atom in 1018 hydrogen atoms. This is far smaller than one person among all the people on earth. You need to visualize one person only on as many planets as there are people on earth all with similar populations as Earth. Three big teaspoons of water contain 12*1023 hydrogen atoms. One million in 12*1023 is equivalent to 1 in 1018. It is mind boggling small.

Australia receives between 2 and 3 TU in rain falling on our land. 1TU is equivalent to 0.118 Bq /L of water.  One becquerel (Bq)is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. The World Health Organization standard for drinking water is 10,000 Bq/L. To reach the same levels of radioactivity in 3 big teaspoons of our rainwater you would need to drink about a quarter of a million litres of water in one day.  Whoops! A small fraction of that amount of water as just H2O would kill you.

The human body has 30 to 700*1012 cells. Another enormous number.

So single strand DNA breaks occur naturally in the whole human body over 1016 times a day. This is another enormous number. Our bodies repair this damage.

These slides have been taken from a talk I gave to a group of CSIRO alumni.

The message is that the radioactivity associated with the Fukushima discharge will not harm anything physically. Fear may cause damage to many livelihoods.

When Quick Decisions Lead to Wrong Conclusions

The final step: making sure to put numbers in their right context. Are we looking at the whole picture? What works for some people may not work so well for others.

There is a tremendous amount of excellent technical information about radioactivity on the web, but it is often hard for anyone without that specific training to understand. There are also a lot of misleading statements and conclusions on the web. These even appear in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles such as the Chinese paper given as a link in my blog Tritium Trivia. This paper showed the results of modelling various releases of tritium water from Fukushima. Unfortunately, the last step was forgotten. Showing great expanses of red all over the Pacific Ocean would lead nearly everybody to say “How terrible! Japan is polluting the Pacific Ocean with radioactive material.” However, at the end of the document the background levels of tritium in the Pacific Ocean are quoted and this puts the release data into perspective. But nowhere in the paper was the context of the data given, that is that the levels of tritium were so low compared to normal background levels that they would be impossible to distinguish from the background variability.

I have made the decision that I will try to make my blogs as easy to read as I can so that they are suitable for most users of the web. This is not easy with technical information and my background of writing technical reports. Word has an editor function that allows you to calculate the readability of the document. Yesterday, for the very first time I managed to achieve my goal.

I was so excited that I quickly finished the blog and published it only to realize within minutes that I had forgotten a crucial step. I had jumped to the conclusion too quickly and not fully put the information into context. I rapidly edited the post and republished it. However, my subscribers received a set of comments that were not quite right. In my joy of finding a way to explain just how low tritium levels can be, I forgot just how many hydrogen atoms are in a little water. 18 g of water (one mole for the technocrats) contains 6*1023 molecules of water, 12*1023 hydrogen atoms and about a million tritium atoms.  This is still just as teeny in radiation terms but the numbers 1 and a million sound so different. 1TU is only 0.118 Bq/L. I will explain what this means in future blogs.

I apologize to my subscribers. At my age you are allowed to call it a senior moment. However, I suspect that in our current haste over climate change mitigation, we are all making similar mistakes. We do the first part of the work but then forget to really look at the big picture and put everything into context.

It’s Raining! I Might Get Tritium in My Hair?

True or false?

True, and this blog will tell you why it happens.

We all have trouble looking at very big or small numbers and understanding their size and importance. I am one of those lucky people who have less trouble than most. This has had its downsides too.  As a child I loved mathematics and algebra. I saw the patterns in numbers easily and it was all a big game to me until I was bullied at a small country school for being different. I was tied to a post, day after day, mocked at, spat at, and even pummeled with food scraps.

Now I am a senior, maths is not so easy, but I will try and make some numbers about radiation levels easier to understand.

Tritium is a natural substance.

Tritium is formed in minute quantities every day in our atmosphere. Cosmic rays from space hit the gases in the air, mainly nitrogen, forming tritium. Tritium is a type of hydrogen atom with 2 extra neutrons in its nucleus. Tritium quickly becomes part of a water molecule.  Instead of a water molecule with 2 atoms of ordinary common hydrogen with one atom of oxygen (H2O), a few molecules of water are HTO. The chemistry of both is virtually identical.  The mixture comes down as rain.

Just how many water molecules have tritium in them? Well, this is where the big and little numbers come in, making the situation hard to visualize. A new unit was created to help scientists assess the meaning of various concentrations.  1 TU or tritium unit equals 1 tritium atom in 1018 atoms of hydrogen. 1018 is 1 followed by 18 zeros. I find that hard to visualize. Let’s try. There are 8 billion people on Earth, that is 8,000,000,000 people. That is only 8 with 9 zeros. So, we have to imagine the same number of planets as there are people on the earth, with populations similar to earth to be in the right ballpark.  So TUs are like one tritium or one person out of all those people on all those planets put together.  I still find that hard to visualize, but it does tell me that finding 1 tritium atom in all those ordinary hydrogen atoms looks impossible.  Yet scientists around the world can and do measure tritium levels in rain, river and ocean water and ground water. In Australia, ANSTO publishes some of this data.

So how high are tritium levels in rain? It is seasonal and dependent on rainfall patterns. In Australia it is 2 to 3 TU. Most numbers vary from 1 to 10 TU.  Nuclear bomb testing increased tritium levels in rain for a time but still at levels in the same sort of range, definitely measurable but extremely small.

So, what does this actually mean? What are the chances of one tritiated water molecule falling on your head? 18 g of water (3 big teaspoons) contain 6 *1023 molecules of water. There would be a million tritium atoms in this rainwater.

Yes, if it rains on your hair, you will get natural tritium in your hair.

So the answer is TRUE.

1f Nuclear Accidents

The first nuclear power plants were built during a period when safety was not considered as it is now.

When I did my undergraduate degree in chemistry in the 1960s, most of the organic chemistry department personnel were missing an eye. We were not considered true organic chemists until we had at least one labelled mark on the ceiling from an accidental explosion. We used Bunsen burners, naked gas flames, to distill off flammable and often carcinogenic solvents. I knew just what to do when my hair, lab coat and books erupted in flame from burning ether. Big drums were used for the storage of solvents and when the lab finally burnt down, the explosions from each of the solvent drums sent up spectacular columns of black smoke. The Research Laboratory of ICIANZ where I had a holiday job burnt down a year or so after I was there despite the training we received to prevent and extinguish solvent fires.

When I went to the dentist as a child, the dentist gave me mercury to take home for play. I first held a big bar of uranium metal in my bare hands in 1962.

The first safety features for nuclear power plants were just tacked on as an afterthought. I will describe current safety features for nuclear power plants later in my series of blogs. Safety is now designed and built in, made triply redundant and checked and cross-checked by regulators.

Three nuclear power plant accidents are well known. Using some of my slides from my presentations, the basic facts as best I can ascertain them are given below.

Fear caused all the health effects.

Chernobyl was a terrible happening. So many things were wrong including dreadful design with just a thin concrete cover and international coverup following the explosion. Documents are still being written about the details.

Recorded interviews with Babushkas are enlightening. “My friends who stayed away are all dead now and we are still alive.” 

Ukraine, the site of the Chernobyl disaster obtained almost half of its electricity from nuclear power plants in 2021. It was planning to build more. I have been presenting detailed updates about the happenings and safety of nuclear facilities in Ukraine during each presentation I do.

In 2008, My husband and I attended an International Mining Water Association conference in Karlovy Vary within the Czech Republic. The U.S.S.R. had pillaged its surrounding countries leaving massive legacies. One of the remediation projects we visited was a uranium mine with contaminated ground water. The rehabilitation scientists presented the chemical data and then took us out to view the works which were in their last stages. In one area there were beautiful, ripe, wild strawberries. I picked a strawberry and illogical fear erupted around me. I said, “You have seen the data, these are perfectly healthy to eat, and I am not worried.”  Suddenly, the men around me were trying the strawberries too and they were wonderful.

A friend who worked at the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, told me in 2005 that the IAEA had learnt many lessons about how to manage a disaster at Chernobyl. A whole generation of rural farming children grew up without sufficient protein in their diets, eggs and milk being their traditional sources. Fear caused a lot of unnecessary damage. However, these lessons were forgotten or not learnt by Government authorities when a tsunami hit Japan.

Many studies have been published about the incidence of thyroid cancer in children following Chernobyl. A very large collection of thyroid tissue samples was collected from thyroid cancer sufferers. A very recent genetic study has shown that children receiving high doses of Iodine 131 soon after the disaster do have quite distinct genetic damage from that of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer since that time. (References:

  1. Yeager M, Machiela MJ, Kothiyal P, et al. Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident. April 22, 2021. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abg2365.
  2. Morton LM, Karyadi DM, Stewart C, et al. Radiation-related genomic profile of papillary thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident. April 22, 2021. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abg2538.)

Iodine 131 breaks down very quickly. The following graph shows its decay curve. Half of it has decayed in 8 days and 99.9% in 80days.

Japan shut down many of its nuclear power plants. After very extensive safety testing and refurbishment, many of these power plants are now back in operation.

Antinuclear campaigners used the following picture with the heading shown on it to frighten people around the world. Yes, it is a graph produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association of the US (NOAA), but it is not a graph of radiation but of wave heights. It had no relation to radiation levels in sea water.

There is a tendency when people become sick, particularly with cancer, to blame nuclear radiation as the culprit. When I was head of the technical division for environmental regulation in mining in the Northern Territory the outcome of an investigation near Ranger Uranium Mine illustrated this point. Members of the Jawoyn people were becoming sick. They gathered food in a billabong downstream of the mine. The Jawoyn blamed the mine. Extensive monitoring of the food and water showed only very low background levels of radioactivity.  The investigations detected dangerous levels of raw sewage contamination. Bacteria were causing the sickness and the situation was soon rectified.

There are other concerns voiced about nuclear energy, and these will be discussed in later blogs.

1e Nuclear Weapons

The decision to end the war quickly by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified to the world as it was estimated to save up to a million lives.  Was it?  Probably. About 100,000 Japanese had been killed shortly beforehand from more conventional bombing of Tokyo. It certainly saved the lives of ten thousand Australians close to starvation in Japanese prisoner of war camps.

I was conceived just before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and grew up during the Cold War. Nobody was sure what would happen next.

Nobody can argue that nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon testing or indeed any form of war does not harm us all. The United States believes in deterrents.  Are they right?  Perhaps so.  There has not been a nuclear bomb used in 75 years. William Perry believes we must still do all we can to remove nuclear weapons from our world and I agree.

How easy is it to make a nuclear bomb?

It is extremely difficult technically and extremely expensive both in money and energy terms.

In today’s dollars the cost to make enough fissile material runs into tens even hundreds of billions.

What about “dirty bombs”, bombs containing radioactive material. I read a comment from those responsible for clean-up and decontamination that it would be a simple, straightforward process.

Some of the information above came from my notes when I undertook courses from Stanford University online: “Living at the Nuclear Brink” by Dr. William J. Perry and “The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism”.  These courses delved into these issues very intensively, but my notes are  sparser. Dr. Perry and his associates did not underplay the threats of misuse of nuclear weapons.

1d Nuclear Radiation

Cosmic rays are extremely high-energy subatomic particles – mostly protons and atomic nuclei accompanied by many forms of electromagnetic emissions – that move through space, eventually bombarding the Earth’s surface. They travel at nearly the speed of light.

Cosmic rays are of two kinds: galactic and solar. Galactic cosmic radiation comes from the remnants of supernovas, which are powerful explosions during the last stages of existence of massive stars.

Solar cosmic radiation is composed of charged particles emitted by the Sun, predominantly electrons, protons and helium nuclei. Some of this radiation is continuously emitted from the Sun’s corona and known as ‘solar wind.’ The remainder comes from solar particle events – sudden and sporadic outbursts of electrically charged particles accompanied by electromagnetic emissions that occur when magnetic fields on the Sun’s surface stretch and twist. Like a rubber band, the Sun’s fields can snap, suddenly releasing enormous energy and presenting potential health concerns to astronauts in space. Although rare, strong solar flares can create radio blackouts and impact modern communication and navigation technology on ground.

The Earth is shielded by a magnetic field that makes the charged particles bounce from pole to pole, creating two gigantic donut-shaped belts populated by energetic electrons and protons. This field protects us from most of the cosmic rays. Passengers on aeroplane flights do receive higher doses of cosmic rays particularly at high altitude over the poles.

Ref:  IAEA https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/cosmic-radiation-why-we-should-not-be-worried

The background radiation levels originating from rocks in the earth’s crust, vary considerably. There is increasing evidence that people who live on granite areas have evolved stronger repair mechanisms to cope with the higher radiation levels.

Radon gas is the most insidious of background radiation sources. The gas is breathed into the lungs. Radon concentrations can build up to elevated levels in basements and tunnels or even houses built of granite. Ventilation goes a long way to solving the problem.

Potassium 40 levels can be surprisingly high in many foodstuffs such as bananas and potatoes. No harm has been measured from these sources.

There are quite a few different units used when describing nuclear radiation/radioactivity. The table above shows many of these units. Throughout this series, I have chosen to use millisieverts. This unit has both weighting factors for the type of radiation and also uses weighting factors for the tissue affected when appropriate. This standardisation makes comparisons easier.

Most of Australia has low natural background levels at 1.5 mSv per year. Surprisingly high background levels occur in some parts of the world. Many can be as high as 20 mSv per year. Recent studies are showing little evidence of increased cancer levels in these zones. Our cells divide and divide at enormous rates every day of our lives. Errors can occur. These errors are detected during the process of mitosis at several points in the cell division process and corrected by our wonderful biochemistry. It has been estimated that over 10,000 cancer cells are generated in our bodies every day. Our immune systems detect these cells and destroy them with incredible efficiency.

Australians double their exposure to radioactivity using medical diagnostics. A CT scan of the chest or abdomen delivers about 10 mSv. The levels of radioactivity used during radiation therapy for cancer are extremely high but are carefully aimed at the troubled tissue. Methods of delivering radiation therapy are becoming more sophisticated and more targeted.

Much of our knowledge about high doses of radiation and its effects, come from detailed studies of the impact of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Standards set for acceptable levels of radiation are extremely conservative and evidence is building up that these standards are far too low. Instead of protecting the general public, the standards have caused unnecessary fear and inappropriate actions that led to mental health issues and other health issues.

Statistics from the US show a lifetime risk of having some form of medically diagnosed cancer as 1 in 3 (33%) and death from cancer as 1 in 5 (20%). An acute dose of 100mSv has a cancer risk of only 0.4%. An accumulated dose at this level would be lower still as the body has a chance to repair itself.

I have noted that radiation doses and their effects vary from source to source but they are not dissimilar and the slides shown above provide a reasonable concept.

Recently, five ex-Prime Ministers of Japan sent a letter to the EU claiming children in Fukushima province were still suffering from thyroid cancer because of contamination from the nuclear power plant following the 2011 tsunami. The Governor of Fukushima Province was irate over this and said the information was not based on science. The inflammatory letter was probably based on two viewpoints. Many children had all, or part of their thyroid glands removed because of a large screening exercise for thyroid abnormalities following the impact of the tsunami and now some will need thyroid hormone substitution all their lives. Six of these children are currently suing Tokyo Electric Power Company, the Daiichi Power station operators for damages.

The first signatory to the letter, Koizumi Junichiro, is an advisor to a private organization that promotes zero nuclear power and renewable energy.

 The large screening exercise was undertaken on hundreds of thousands of children using a new advanced ultrasound technology capable of picking up a range of abnormalities not usually seen and panic set in. When control screening was undertaken on children in 3 prefectures far from any possible contamination, the same extent and types of abnormalities were found. They did not lead to thyroid cancer. It is sad that so many children were overtreated. A wait and see approach would have been better and not led to further illness.

 Some references on thyroid cancers:

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220203_11/ –   NHK WORLD-JAPAN is the international service of Japan’s public media organization NHK.

https://www.science.org/content/article/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima – Mar 2016

There is an optimum amount for most substances in biological beings. Too much is toxic, too little can often be harmful too. The optimum range is not the same from organism to organism and can be different at various times. For minerals, the optimum level ranges are often like those in the environment where the species evolved. Does this same concept apply to radiation?

1c Nuclear 101

The source of all our energy production is nuclear in nature.  The energy of the sun comes from nuclear reactions.  Earth heats itself through nuclear reactions which occur deep underground but not enough to sustain life, we need the heat of the sun too.

Every element has a unique atomic number, and this number corresponds to the number of protons in its nucleus. Protons are positively charged entities and would push away from each other very quickly if they were not buffered by neutrons. The mass number of an element is simply the sum of its protons and neutrons. Most of the carbon on earth has six protons and six neutrons to a total of twelve.

Carbon 12 is the common isotope of carbon. Carbon-14 still has an atomic number of six, six protons in its nucleus but eight neutrons for a total of 14. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.

Hydrogen (H) is the lightest element and only has one proton. Deuterium and tritium are isotopes of hydrogen and contain one proton and either one or two neutrons. Thus, tritium has a mass number of three, one proton and two neutrons. The next element with 2 protons is Helium (He).

If, when an atom emits nuclear radiation, the number of protons in the nucleus changes, the atom changes to another element – the element that has the new number of protons.

Uranium is a metal and one of the heaviest, naturally occurring elements on earth. It is ubiquitous in our environment. It is in our drinking water, in our food, in our soils and in ourselves. When any element is much more concentrated in rocks than normal, we refer to it as an ore.

Uranium has 92 protons. Uranium 238 is the most common isotope and makes up 99.3% with 146 neutrons. It is very mildly radioactive with a half-life similar to the age of the earth itself. Uranium 235 only makes up about 0.7% and is much more radioactive. Even rarer, is the uranium 234 isotope with 142 neutrons.

The slide above shows a version of all the known elements. It is hard to see, but hydrogen (H) is right up in the left-hand corner. Uranium (U) is fourth from the left in the bottom row. All the elements on a yellow background are radioactive. Some of the minor isotopes of the elements on the white background are also radioactive such as iodine 131, potassium 40, and carbon-14.

The video below is an excellent presentation on radioactivity. Please watch it! It leads into the next blog. If you have trouble from this site watch it on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTb_KRG6LXo

1b Uncontrolled Power of any Type is Dangerous

Fear is one of the most basic human emotions. It is programmed into the nervous system and works like an instinct. From the time we’re infants, we are equipped with the survival instincts necessary to respond with fear when we sense danger or feel unsafe….

People fear things or situations that make them feel unsafe or unsure. For instance, someone who isn’t a strong swimmer might have a fear of deep water. In this case, the fear is helpful because it cautions the person to stay safe. Someone could overcome this fear by learning how to swim safely.

A fear can be healthy if it cautions a person to stay safe around something that could be dangerous. But sometimes a fear is unnecessary and causes more caution than the situation calls for. (Words quoted from https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/phobias.html.)

We also fear for those we love.  A mother’s fear for her children can be particularly strong.  This latter instinct has been utilised by anti-nuclear power campaigners very effectively.  Anti-nuclear campaigners are very genuine in their fears which I believe is based on emotional thinking.  Historically, there were good reasons for their fears, and I will address some of these reasons in future blogs.

A look at the early days of nuclear power show little regard for safety.  Indeed, safety played only a small part of life just after WW2 and into the 50s.  Nuclear bombs were tested. Nuclear proliferation was rife during the Cold War.  Nuclear power and nuclear bombs were linked in our minds.  This does not apply now.  The technologies are very different, the fuel used is very different. Nuclear power fuel uses slightly enriched uranium or is not enriched at all.  Nuclear weapons are very, very highly enriched and the fuel is technically difficult and horrendously expensive to produce.

In the 60s and 70s, our car broke down frequently, there were not even seat belts.  We cannot pretend those cars compare with our cars now.  New generation nuclear power plants are very different too. Indeed, safety was not considered in most areas of life in Australia.  As a young chemist, I remember many practices that would not be allowed today.

The recent floods in Australia illustrate this point. Anything can beneficial or harmful.  For example, we all know arsenic can kill but a couple of enzymes require arsenic as part of their structure. This probably even applies to nuclear radiation. It is rarely beneficial to have too much of a good thing. 

The rest of this presentation introduces some essential concepts of nuclear physics and chemistry – Nuclear 101 – and looks more deeply at fears we may have.

With this background you will be in a better position to make rational decisions about nuclear power.

1a Why Do We Fear Nuclear Power?

When nuclear reactions occur, two main forms of energy are released: heat and radiation. Radiation is used in nuclear power plants to cause more nuclear reactions to occur to keep the power plant operating.  The heat is collected by a “cooling system” and makes steam which then drives turbines and generates electricity.  Most of a nuclear power plant runs in a very similar way to electricity generation by a coal -fired or gas power plant.  They all have turbines and cooling systems. When we burn coal, gas or wood, the energy is released in two main forms: heat and radiation.  In this case, the radiation is in the form of infra-red radiation  and light which is not so useful except perhaps psychologically sitting in front of an open fire.

There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation in 33 countries. Australia is not one of these. Australia is the only G20 country where nuclear power is banned by Federal law. Nuclear power production is currently not permitted under two main pieces of Commonwealth legislation—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).

Nuclear power plants provide 10% of the world’s electricity. It is one of the safest sources of power generation. It produces no CO2 or other pollutants during operation and is the only source of power where every stage of the entire life cycle is securely contained.

Civil nuclear power has more than 18,000 reactor years of experience. The first commercial power plants were built over 50 years ago in the 1960s. Many of the world’s current nuclear power plants were built decades ago and for many years, few new reactors were built due to the campaigns by antinuclear groups and community concerns following Chernobyl. This was concerning as the new technology with greatly improved safety and efficiency was not being implemented. Safety features were no longer just added on as the technology advanced but were an integral part of the designs.

A year ago, the USA and major countries in Europe were setting dates to rid themselves of nuclear. Even France that had 70% of its electricity produced by nuclear power plants was winding down the industry.  Sweden was replacing nuclear with wind power and Germany was determined to close all its nuclear power plants. However, other parts of the world, particularly Asia, had a different view and saw nuclear as an important part of the energy mix.  About 55 power reactors are currently being planned or constructed in 19 countries.

In 2022, attitudes seem to be changing. France’s president Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to relaunch the country’s commercial nuclear programme with the construction of at least six new nuclear power reactors – and the possibility of eight more for a total of 14 – if he is re-elected. He also announced he wants to extend the lifespan of older nuclear plants to 50 years or more from 40 years currently, provided it was safe to do so. Japan shut down most of its nuclear power plants following the Fukushima event but has then gradually reopened each plant following extensive safety assessment and refurbishment.

Over recent weeks, several Eastern European countries have stated they need nuclear power if they are to reach their 2050 climate goals.

The first set of blogs accompanying my PowerPoint slides provide some basic material on radioactivity and uranium, fact checks issues that worry most of us and asks the question “Why are we afraid of nuclear power?”.