Tag: Nuclear

Do Nuclear Workers Get More Cancer?

Should we trust recent claims that low-dose radiation causes cancers? What is the truth? Do we really know?

Anti-nuclear groups in Australia have been given a new weapon for their arsenal of outdated fear campaigns. Recently published epidemiological studies linking cancers and heart disease to nuclear industry workers are being spread as established fact by Margaret Beavis, Climate Council, ACF and FOE and even the Labour Party.  

So much damage has been done by those who instil fear of ionising radiation in others. The “holier than thou” attitudes developed during the cold war are now very outdated. There are well-meaning groups of scientists, particularly epidemiologists, environmentalists and regulators who find it in their best interest to hang on to outdated information. Paradigms about radiation that began in the 50s and 60s have not changed despite all we have learnt about biological repair mechanisms and low dose radiation. It is a bit like comparing the safety of a modern aeroplane with the Hindenburg hydrogen airship. Why does this happen?

What is a Paradigm?

A paradigm is an interlocking set of assumptions about the operation of a complex system. It is a model of how the system works. Once accepted by the scientific community, a paradigm tends to channel attention and research funding into “acceptable” directions. Observations that fail to fit the paradigm may be ignored or suppressed. This is not a conspiracy but, instead, a reflection of human nature. When we believe something to be true, we discount alternative statements that contradict the “truth” as we perceive it. In general, a paradigm must be conclusively disproved before a new paradigm can be accepted.

It can really hurt to find out your beliefs of decades are not true.

Even twenty years ago, there were over 3,000 scientific papers published in reputable journals concluding that low dose irradiation is stimulatory and/or beneficial in a wide variety of microbes, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Using the parameters of cancer mortality rates or mean lifespan in humans, no scientifically acceptable study was found which showed that less than 100mSv was harmful. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/

A reward was even offered for any one report in English with scientifically acceptable evidence of harm (increased cancer death rate or decreased average lifespan) from low dose irradiation in normal (not immune deficient) humans or laboratory animals. The reward was not claimed.

In this blog, radiation levels greater than 100 mSv are not considered to be low dose. In some medical literature the term low dose is used for much higher levels of radiation. High doses of radiation have very different effects on living entities and can harm and kill. Repair mechanisms are overwhelmed.

Epidemiological Studies

In a classic science experiment, only one variable is changed at a time. All other factors remain the same. BUT this is only possible when working with simple systems such as in some basic physics or chemistry experiments. The real world is very complex, and biological systems are extremely complex. It becomes impossible to control all influencing factors – “confounding factors”. When confounding factors have more influence on the result then the variable under consideration, scientific evaluation becomes extremely difficult. This is the reason why it took so long to prove that smoking could cause lung cancer. The more complex the system studied, the more complex the mathematical statistics used becomes.

There are many types of epidemiological studies. When there is no control population used, and the data is simply observational and collected after the effects, a retrospective cohort study is the only choice. Cohort studies can never prove causation. They can only suggest a hypothesis for more detailed study. If data are collected after the fact, a cohort study becomes even more unreliable. When a medical effect is very rare, very large numbers of people are required for the study and statements of relative risk become almost meaningless. Attempts to discount confounding factors may be made. It is simply impossible to deal with all confounding factors.

To try and obtain a result, many mathematical manipulations are undertaken on the data. In studies about radiation, different groups sometimes publish completely opposite results because the mathematical formulae used on same data set are different.

For over 70 years, radiation epidemiologists have fallen into 2 camps. Those that fully support the Low No Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis to explain radiation health effects and those that spurn its use or simply accept the status quo for now for regularity purposes.

The LNT Hypothesis

The LNT Model was formulated on data from the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WW2. It is based on the following assumptions:

  • Radiation exposure is harmful.
  • Radiation exposure is harmful at all exposure levels.
  • Each increment of exposure adds to the overall risk.
  • The rate of accumulation of radiation exposure has no bearing on risk.

No Hormetic Effect:

The model does not consider the possibility of any beneficial effects (hormesis) or stimulatory effects from low doses of radiation. It assumes that any increase in radiation exposure, however small, is detrimental. 

It Doesn’t Recognise Biological Repair Mechanisms:

Our knowledge of the biochemistry of molecule, cell and tissue damage and repair mechanisms has grown enormously since the 1950s.

Dr. Antone L Brooks, the Chief Scientist for the US Dept. of Energy’s Low Dose Radiation Research Program from 1998 to 2008 continues to publicize in his quiet manner that we knew better well over a generation ago that the assumptions of the LNT Model are not correct. He has stated many times that despite its simplicity when used for regulatory purposes, the LNT model overestimates the effect of radiation on living things and should not be used to estimate health effects. Many other voices say the same.

The LNT is used by many countries for regulatory practices. It is extremely conservative and hence standards for radiation protection are probably overly protective. For example, the US NRC and US EPA endorse the model, while other professional bodies such as the Health Physics Society and the French Academies of Science and Medicine deprecates it.

Unfortunately, this approach has led to unreasonable fear of radiation and excessive time and money costs. The LNT model works for high dose single exposures.

One of the organizations for establishing recommendations on radiation protection guidelines internationally, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) that previously supported the LNT model, no longer supports the model for very low radiation doses.

The Australian Radiation Safety and Advisory Council in their Position Statement to ARPANSA on the use of the LNT model in ionising radiation protection states that:

“The appropriate use of the LNT model has enabled effective radiation protection systems. However, the inappropriate use of the LNT model has inadvertently increased community fear of ionising radiation. The Council advises that extremely low doses of ionising radiation may be associated with no or an extremely low risk of harm.

Incorrect emphasis on potential risks associated with low radiation doses and dose rates can have negative impacts as it can prevent health, medical, environmental, social and economic benefits being realised. In adopting the LNT model it remains essential to balance the low risks of low-dose ionising radiation exposure against the benefits of the radiation.  https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/rhsac_-_position_statement_on_the_use_of_the_lnt_1_may_2017

Cellular Repair Mechanisms

When it comes to cancer, the main concern is DNA damage.  Living tissue is made up of cells. Cells are mostly water.   If a radioactive particle enters a cell, it transfers a portion of its energy to the cell mainly by breaking the chemical bonds that hold the water molecule together.  This creates highly reactive, free radicals which can disrupt the cell’s chemistry including damaging the cell’s DNA. But do you realise that almost all free radicals are created by our use of oxygen to turn our food into energy?

Most of the DNA damage is single strand breaks, in which only one side of the double helix is disrupted. Single strand breaks are astonishingly frequent, >10,000 per cell per day.  Almost all these breaks are caused by free radicals produced by the cell’s own metabolism.  These are repaired almost automatically by the clever structure of the DNA molecule itself, with the undamaged side serving as a template.

But occasionally we get a double strand break (DSB). It’s the DSB’s that can start the process that may result in cancer.  Cell metabolism generates a DSB about once every 10 days per cell.  Average natural background radiation creates a DSB about every 10,000 days per cell.

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. 

These changes are only seen at single high doses of radiation.

Some of these hallmark changes include avoidance of immune destruction, deregulation of cellular energetics and resisting cell death.  A simple diagram of the hallmarks of cancer is shown below. Knowledge of cancer mechanisms has progressed enormously since this diagram was first formulated.

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00127-9 This paper has been cited >81,000 times. For a more up-to-date and detailed view see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35022204/

The INWORKS Studies

The International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) is a large series of international epidemiological papers on workers in the nuclear sector. It was launched in 2011 and coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The study combines data from nuclear workers in the UK, US and France for pooled analysis. It seeks to gain greater knowledge relating to the risks of cancer and non-cancerous diseases linked to chronic exposure to low doses of ionising radiation at low dose rates.

INWORKS followed on from 15 Country Study published in 2007 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17388693/ (Among 31 specific types of malignancies studied, it was concluded that a significant association was found for lung cancer and a borderline significant association for multiple myeloma with  a strong healthy worker survivor effect in these cohorts.

The healthy worker survivor effect has been assumed repeatedly whenever an analysis has shown that the cohort studied indicated less risk to nuclear workers. Slight variations in the cohorts are analysed by different techniques or parts of the cohort left out of the calculations or different methods are used to define the radiation levels experienced by workers. Many confounding factors were not considered. One of the most important of these is the lack of consideration of different background levels of radiation. Nor were there records of medical exposure such as CT scans or cancer treatment.

Most of the graphs shown have huge error bars yet excess relative risk is quoted with up to four significant figures. The slope of the LNT model is even used in some calculations. Many of the dozens of papers published are in the form of minimum publishable units, which makes it hard to fully understand exactly how some of the final analyses were undertaken and the conclusions reached. The INWORKS consortium has recently stated that they will not release their basic data so others can analyse it independently, claiming confidentiality problems. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is reproducibility by others.

Some of the papers have been published recently in 2023 and 2024. A few of the relatively recent papers are:  https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00240-0, and on circularity issues: Radiation Research 188, 276–290 (2017) DOI: 10.1667/RR14608.1. Haematological malignancies https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626443/ or the SELTINE study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9817793/#:~:text=3.2.&text=Supplementary%20Table%20S1%20shows%20the,CI:%200.69%E2%80%930.73). Some information on the cohorts used is given in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4703555/pdf/nihms723379.pdf

 It is the results on these studies that are being published ignoring the rest of the literature, particularly detailed criticisms of the work. The quoted error ranges are huge. Some of the graphs could even be used to suggest that low- dose radiation lowers the workers chance of cancer – a hormesis effect. For a more detailed critique of some of the studies see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5974569/pdf/10.1177_1559325818778702.pdf

Government websites simply republish the “results” without interpretation or perspective. Usually, the way the results in the papers are given would be meaningless to most readers. However, I did read in one abstract today that the radiation attributable absolute risk of leukaemia mortality in this population is low (one excess death in 10 000 workers over a 35-year period) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626443/

So, should we trust recent claims that low-dose radiation causes cancers and other health issues? What is the truth? Do we really know?

Some epidemiologists have been trying to prove that low-dose radiation is harmful and that the damage does accumulate for decades, and they are still trying. It is certainly possible that a few people may be affected in some way, but the risk is so small, one must ask why not concentrate on protecting people in other industries where carcinogenic substances are far more common.

We do know that most cellular responses to low-dose radiation are protective and positive. There are a couple of changes that may be positive or negative depending on the state of a cell. Nothing in life is perfect but the more biochemistry we learn, the more impressive is the chemistry of life. It seems likely, based on recent research work that cells may even need some low-dose radiation to thrive. After all we did evolve with ionising radiation.

Is it time that we found a “healthy” middle ground?

For more information about background radiation levels: https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2024/12/30/background-radiation-how-much-radiation-do-we-experience-on-earth/

Please let me know if you would like more information on any of the topics in this blog.

Decommissioning a Nuclear Site

How can nuclear facilities be closed down in an environmentally friendly way once they have reached the end of their operating life? This video shows what it takes to decommission and restore a nuclear site.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/decommissioning-restoring-former-nuclear-sites

As Kris Kolasinski and Martin Klingenboeck wrote in the IAEA news:

Planning and innovation play crucial roles when it comes to the end of a nuclear reactor’s life. Decommissioning activities, set to increase in the coming years as ageing nuclear power plants are retired, include decontamination and dismantling of structures, leading to the removal of regulatory controls so that a facility and site may be reused. In this video, you will learn how decommissioning activities are carried out effectively and safely, including the example of one such project currently underway in the French town of La Hague, where a former fuel processing plant is being decommissioned.

This video was first published in 2023 for the International Conference on Nuclear Decommissioning.

Nuclear Power Radiation is Benign! Part 1

This is a copy of a Substack article by Robert Hargraves on April 6.  The full essay will be posted in several parts. https://substack.com/@roberthargraves1

Abstract

The root cause of nuclear power cost and opposition is excessive fear of radiation. This essay explores true observed radiation, effects, harm, and benefits, summarized here, proven later.

Doesn’t radiation from nuclear power plants causes cancer?

No, its radiation damage rates are slower than biological repair rates.

Isn’t the nuclear waste harmful to future generations?

No, we can store used fuel in ground-level casks as penetrating radiation decays away. You’d then have to eat the waste to get sick.

Don’t nuclear power plants cost too much?

Yes, because regulators’ rules were written using the precautionary principle, not today’s scientific observations.

Full Essay

Radiation is a weak carcinogen. After the WW II atomic bombings of Japan we all feared globally destructive nuclear war. To intensify that fear NGOs and nations exaggerated geneticists’ idea that even trivial amounts of radiation constantly degraded human genes through generations, even to birthing three-eyed monsters. When that fiction was disproven, the radiation fear of choice became cancer.

Governments and regulators strove to protect voters from the vague harm of invisible radiation, creating rules and procedures to keep people away from any radiation from nuclear power. These rules constantly became more strict and cumbersome.

These radiation exposure rules from worldwide regulators such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission created the problem of high cost and long build times, making new nuclear power too expensive. In reality, nuclear power can be the least expensive reliable energy source, at $0.03/kWh, if we educate the public, politicians, and regulators.

Fear can kill. Radiation from the triple Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown killed no one, but Japan’s fearful government killed over 1,600 people with hasty, unnecessary evacuations.

Nuclear power optimism is on the rise. Will people return to nuclear fear after the next failure leaks some radioactive material out? Perfection is impossible. Radiation releases will happen. Airplanes do crash. People still fly. They understand authentic risks and benefits.

Two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power reactors has been powered up in Georgia. Will these be the last commercial US nuclear power plants?

Radiation fear

Wisdom of a woman awarded two Nobel prizes.

Ionizing radiation harms by displacing electrons, breaking molecular bonds in cells. Radiation dose is measured in Sieverts (Sv) or Grays, which are watt-seconds (joules) of energy absorbed, per kilogram of tissue. These are the effects of intensive, brief absorbed doses of radiation.

  • 10 Sv is deadly,
  • 1 Sv risks non-fatal acute radiation sickness,
  • 0.1 Sv slightly increases future cancer risk.

Regulators mistakenly claim any radiation exposure is potentially harmful, so set unreasonably low limits, hoping to calm fearful people. Media headlines frighten people about any radiation leaks, no matter how small, in order to gain attention with headlines.

Nuclear power growth, now in vogue, will end with the next radiation release unless we replace today’s regulators with institutions that balance benefits against quantified radiation doses and observed effects.

The near century of concessions lowering 1934 radiation limits from 0.002 Sv per day to 0.001 Sv per year has not reduced harm. Lowered limits have increased public fear, along with evidence-free rulings that all radiation is potentially fatal.

Newspapers often highlight unsubstantiated claims of radiation harm, such as this New York Times fright about CT scans, “a 2009 study from the National Cancer Institute estimates that CT scans conducted in 2007 will cause a projected 29,000 excess cancer cases and 14,500 excess deaths over the lifetime of those exposed.” The correct number is likely zero.

Atomic bomb survivors

After the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people and nations became concerned about the destruction of possible world-wide nuclear war. In 1950 began a studies of the health of the atom bomb survivors. The work was undertaken to make people more aware of the possible long term effects of radiation on genetics, and to increase fear of nuclear warfare. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) maintains the data and publishes papers that explore linkages between cancer and radiation exposure. Radiation doses, by individual, were estimated after asking people where they were at the time of the bomb explosions, five years before.

The US National Academies used REFR data to claim that the risk of solid cancer is directly proportional to absorbed radiation dose. They promote the LNT (linear no threshold) model of health effects of radiation, which maintains the chance of cancer is directly proportionate to radiation exposure, and thus there is no safe dose of radiation. They published this following chart of cancer risk for bomb survivors.

Excess cancer risk for people irradiated by the atomic bomb

However, the data point in the low dose range of exposures less than 0.1 Sv does not show evidence that such low doses case cancer. Few in the radiation science community endorse this LNT model of low dose radiation effects, but LNT remains the official policy of the US EPA, NRC, and many other organizations in the radiation protection industry.

National Council on Radiation Protection hides data refuting LNT.

A 2001 article by Jaworowski and Waligorski illustrated how many scientists were misinforming governments with information tailored to continue the simplistic LNT model. They misled people into fearing that even low level radiation was potentially deadly. The right side of their graphic shows the NCRP’s (National Council on Radiation Protection) seemingly linear relationship between leukemia mortality and radiation exposure for survivors of the atomic bombing, evidencing their support for LNT.

The left hand side shows the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) with much more detailed information about the effects of low dose radiation. There is clearly no evidence of increased leukemia mortality from radiation doses under 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). Clearly the LNT model is wrong.

A-bomb survivors’ exposures < 0.1 Sv caused no excess cancers.

The chart above uses bomb survivor cancer data to display that cancer rate increases from radiation, if any, are unobservable at doses < 0 .1 Sv. The leftmost, blue bar represents residents who happened not to be in the cities when the two atomic bombs exploded.

Part 2 will discuss regulation of nuclear facilities

Endnotes

A fully referenced version, with endnotes and URL links, is https://hargraves.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Benign!+Nuclear+power+radiation.pdf

Cognitive Dissonance and Low-Dose Radiation

Germany has more radon baths than any other country. Yet they fear nuclear power plants. They closed them down and opened up coal mines knocking down ancient forests in the process. Medical benefit payments are paid out to people who attend the radon spas for relief of muscular-skeletal ailments. The medical fraternity warns of the dangers of radon yet people in pain still seek relief.

People have been using radon baths for thousands of years.  Low dose radiation seems to lessen the pain and immobility of osteoarthritis. But not every patient benefits.

https://www.fau.eu/2019/01/17/news/research/the-healing-effect-of-radon/#:~:text=Thermal%20water%20that%20contains%20radon,Steben%20Health%20Spa%20Research%20Association).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477705/#:~:text=Radon%20Via%20Bath%20or%20Steam,for%20three%20or%20more%20weeks.

Many studies have shown that the more low dose radiation a population receives, the less cancer there is in the population. This effect is known as hormesis. I can also find studies that state that low dose radiation causes cancer.

 Is anything black or white or just shades of grey? Is anybody totally truthful? We all have our biases. To get a message across about cognitive dissonance I wrote “Low Dose Radiation is not Harmful and May Even Be Good for Us! Nobody Died from Radiation at Fukushima”

But panic and fear of radiation caused the unnecessary deaths of over a thousand Japanese people following the evacuation.

Every decision we make in life rests on our perception of the risk involved versus the benefits. That balancing act changes with circumstances. For example, the amount of radiation used for cancer treatment is huge. None of us would want to receive that much in ordinary circumstances. A medical specialist tells us it is our best chance of beating deadly cancer and we accept the treatment for 2 reasons. Firstly, the radiation will be applied under very controlled conditions to a limited area. Secondly, the whole balance of the situation has changed.

A few years ago, I didn’t agree that Australia should have a nuclear power industry. Did we plan long term enough? Did we plan carefully? Were we just too Gung-ho?

I am now watching the destruction of Australia’s wonderful unique biodiversity as we lose forest and mountain ridges to wind turbine projects in Queensland in the “fight against climate change”. Is the balance, right? Do we have to destroy nature to save the planet?

Ecologists, Barry W. Brook and Corey J. A. Bradshaw ranked 7 major electricity-generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits. They published a paper in 2014 called:  Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12433.

This study still stands out. It used multicriteria decision-making analysis and ranked 7 major electricity-generation sources based on costs and benefits. It then tested the sensitivity of the rankings to biases stemming from contrasting philosophical ideals. Irrespective of weightings, nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio.

The Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources undertaken by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe which concentrated on Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region has been extensively quoted by Oscar Martin on LinkedIn. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4020227?ln=en&v=pdf

Nuclear scored far better than wind power (and all other electricity generation types) on nearly all rankings with the exception of water use and of course radiation. Public and occupational exposures to radiation from electricity generation was far higher from coal and even geothermal systems than from conventional nuclear power plants. Likewise, every other of 22 assessed electricity generation types were more carcinogenic than conventional nuclear power.

Potential impacts such as specific biodiversity-related impacts, noise or aesthetic disturbance were not assessed under the land use analysis. Nuclear had the lowest lifecycle impacts on ecosystems, followed by various forms of wind and solar power. Under the land use assessment, renewable technologies were assumed to be readily built on various land types without heavy modifications such as land sealing, mountaintop removal, and flooding.

The assessment of land use which was used in the assessment of ecological impact for wind projects only considered the directly disturbed land (turbine pads, access roads) and assumed the surrounding land could be used for other purposes such as agriculture. For disturbed forests this leads to massive underestimation of the impact. Research in far northern Queensland is finding that impacts from wind turbines on some species in forests can extend 3 km or more from a turbine.

Nature is doing over half the work of reducing carbon dioxide levels worldwide. We can save nature and the planet. With a carefully planned mix of nuclear and other energy sources, we can preserve our biodiversity.

Yes, nuclear power is not 100% safe and clean. Nothing ever is. The benefits to humanity and nature are too great to ignore and far greater than the risk.

Australians for Nature and Nuclear!

The Effect of False Fear of Low-Dose Radiation – Fake Graph of Fukushima

Japanese Tsunami March 2011

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake, centred to the east of Sendai caused  a wave 10m high travelling at 800 kph .  The highest wave hitting the coast of Japan was 23m. It travelled inland for 10 km in some places. The Hawaiian Islands had waves over 3 metres high. As many as 19,500 lives were lost from both the earthquake and tsunami.

Misinformation

The following figure, with the added title “FUKISHIMA RADIATION HAS CONTAMINATED THE ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN AND ITS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE!” was repeated over and over again on the web by various “green” groups.

Yes, the figure was produced by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US Government). BUT it is a graph of WAVE HEIGHTS after the tsunami. NOAA does not measure radiation levels.

A similar graph has been used for years by Helen Caldicott including during a presentation to Teals before the last election. Helen’s graph had a logo from a company in Australia that does undertake radiological measurements. The company stated on their website that it was not their work and that their logo was falsely included. She must have known for nearly ten years that the graph was false. I am also horrified by nuclear war and nuclear bombs and admire her work in this area but not at the cost of truth about low dose radiation.

Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are very different. I hate nuclear weapons. However, the use of falsified information when advocating for the banning of nuclear weapons or nuclear power is not OK. It is particularly abhorrent when scientific data is used in a way that the author knows to be untrue. I was told to use this technique in an environmental campaigning course by a famous international “Green” organisation.

These types of fear peddling are totally unethical, particularly when they pretend to be scientific in nature.

Why Do the Media call the Tsunami, the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster?

How many deaths could have been avoided if suggestions for evacuation or shelter in place standards suggested by the IAEA had been used. But Fear and Panicked Evacuation of about 100,000 people was responsible for 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture.

An old nuclear power plant overdue for decommissioning was damaged at Fukushima Daiichi by a wave 13-15m high. The placing and tsunami protection of the Daiichi plant assumed a 3m wave.

Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake itself.

The residual heat cooling systems worked for 8 out of the 11 power plants. At Fukushima Daiichi, electrical power from all 6 external sources stopped and the generators turned on until the tsunami flooding disabled 12 0f 13 backup generators running the cooling systems. Switching gear was also damaged.

Heat built up causing steam in the cooling systems. Hydrogen was produced by the steam reacting with exposed Zircaloy cladding. The containments were filled with inert nitrogen, which prevented hydrogen from burning in the containment. However, the hydrogen leaked from the containment into the reactor buildings, where it mixed with air and exploded. 3 of the 4 reactor buildings were damaged by hydrogen explosions. This was not a nuclear explosion. It was simple chemistry. To prevent further explosions, vent holes were opened in the top of the remaining reactor buildings. All reactors were stable within 2 weeks.

Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami. There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear power plant incident. One man from the plant died of cancer died soon afterwards but it is thought to be unrelated.

But in contrast there were 2,300 deaths caused by fear of radiation that triggered the evacuation.

Government nervousness to this day has delayed the return of many evacuees to their homes. Concerns about radiation in the sea caused panic even in the USA and some people made themselves sick with overdoses of iodine.

Tritium.

About 18 months ago, South Korea and China advised their citizens to stop eating seafood. Water used to cool the Fukushima reactors had been decontaminated and stored in large tanks and was finally to be released to the sea by Japan. The IAEA carefully monitored the releases. Korean fishermen were suffering loss of income as a result of the bans. After Korea monitored the sea water, they reversed their advice. China has only recently lifted their ban as they could not detect any contaminants. I followed the data for a while. Sometimes the tritium levels were so low in the discharge, the discharge water was diluting the tritium levels in the the sea water.

Tritium is created every day in our atmosphere and comes down in the rain, ending up in the sea. This natural process is the overwhelming source of tritium in the ocean.

For more of my blogs about tritium, see https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/08/25/tritium-trivia/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/08/31/its-raining-i-might-get-tritium-in-my-hair/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/06/the-iaea-and-fukushima-water-release/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/09/south-korea-monitors-fukushima-release/

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.

Tritium Trivia

Before I write about the mechanisms all life on Earth uses to repair itself from any harm caused by low dose radiation, I feel I must present some information about tritium and the current political uproar about release of water at Fukushima in Japan.

Japan’s biggest seafood customer, China, has decided to ban seafood from Japan, followed by South Korea. New Caledonia has decided to ban swimming in the ocean.

Japan has been storing treated water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plants in large tanks. There are about a thousand tanks containing 1.2 million tonnes of water.

Japan has begun releasing treated wastewater used to cool down the nuclear reactors damaged by the tsunami in March 2011.  The water has been treated to remove radioactive material, but small quantities remain. Tritium is hard to remove as it forms part of a few of the water molecules.  There are very small quantities of carbon 14 and there may be even smaller quantities of strontium and iodine isotopes.  Most of the latter were dispersed by May 2011.

Tritium is formed naturally every day in our atmosphere and added to the oceans and land as rainwater. Any taken into our bodies comes out fairly quickly in our urine. Radiation from tritium is weak beta rays. These rays do not travel far and are stopped by skin. Unless the dosage is extremely high, our bodies quickly repair any damage caused.

The release from Japan into the Pacific Ocean can be made to sound bad and scary. “But it actually isn’t. Similar releases have occurred around the world for six decades, and nothing bad has ever happened.

“The radioactivity in the Fukushima water is almost entirely tritium, a type of hydrogen. For scale, the Pacific Ocean contains 8,400 grams of pure tritium, while Japan will release 0.06 grams of tritium every year. The minuscule amount of extra radiation won’t make the tiniest jot of difference. A lifetime’s worth of seafood caught a few kilometres from the ocean outlet has the tritium radiation equivalent of one bite of a banana.” according to Nigel Marks is a Professor in Physics at Curtin University

Tony Hooker, Director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at The University of Adelaide says: “I would like to reiterate that the release of tritium from nuclear facilities into waterways has and is undertaken world-wide with no evidence of environmental or human health implications. “

Tony Irwin, an Honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University is also Technical Director of SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd and Chair of Engineers Australia Sydney Division Nuclear Engineering Panel: “There is an understandable perception that all radioactive materials are always and everywhere dangerous, particularly liquid waste, but not all radioactive materials are dangerous. The Fukushima water discharge will contain only harmless tritium and is not a unique event. Nuclear power plants worldwide have routinely discharged water containing tritium for over 60 years without harm to people or the environment, most at higher levels than the 22 TBq per year planned for Fukushima.

“For comparison the Kori nuclear plant in South Korea discharged 91 TBq in 2019, more than four times the planned Fukushima discharge and the French reprocessing plant at La Hague discharged 11,400 TBq in 2018 into the English Channel, more than twelve times the total contents of all the tanks at Fukushima, again without harm to people or the environment.

“It is important that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has carried out an independent and transparent review of the procedures and equipment for discharges and its comprehensive report issued in July 2023 confirms that the release will have a negligible radiological effect on people and the environment. The IAEA will maintain a continuous on-site presence on site to independently monitor discharges.

“More tritium is created in the atmosphere than is produced by nuclear power reactors, and it then falls as rain. Ten times more tritium falls as rain on Japan every year than will be discharged. The discharge limit for release of radioactive water at Fukushima is 1/7th of the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water. The discharge is ultra-conservative.”

Thanks to https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-release-of-waste-water-from-fukushima-into-the-pacific/ 

A paper was published in August 2021 by seven Chinese authors with assistance from authors in the Netherlands, Ukraine, South Korea, and Spain with scary looking figures of their modelling of potential release scenarios by Japan. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X2100549X

On closer examination problematic zones were about 0.1 Becquerel(Bq)/m3 of sea water. These scenarios were all assuming much faster dumping of the water than Japan actually plans. The paper itself gives the background concentration of tritium in the surface water of the North Pacific Ocean as around 50 Bq/m3 (0.2% increase, less than natural variation). Good luck monitoring any difference during the release except at the actual release point.

Japan plans to dilute the water in the tanks before release  with a maximum concentration of tritium in the release of 1,500 Bq/l. The WHO drinking water standard is 10,000 Bq/l.

The IAEA will monitor the release at various points in the dilution and release system. The data is available at

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

To understand the monitoring system watch https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1694605862621380652

As I write, the tritium concentration of the discharge is 207 Bq/l. This is way less than the tough standard Japan set itself of 1,500Bq/l. The gamma ray monitoring ensures the water does not contain other radioactive contaminants.

There Is Already So Much Good Information on the Web

I have been having so much trouble writing this blog. There are so many people out there who can communicate in a clearer fashion than I can. Why would my blog make any difference to a world that needs so much help? Both you dear reader, and I need to remember that if we even educate or influence one other person, we have helped to change the world for the better.

It is impossible to share with others everything that I have learnt on this nuclear journey of mine, but I must try. Without nuclear power, we will find ourselves going back to the dark ages which was such a cruel world.

Renewable energy technologies can only take us so far. There are three major reasons for this. The first is energy density. Wind and solar power cannot provide enough energy to both manufacture themselves, mine the materials they require, recycle some of their components and still produce electricity for other purposes.  Nuclear can. Secondly, the resources to make enough wind and solar for both the developed and the developing world don’t seem to exist. Basic physics ensures that the energy required to completely recycle components is enormous.

Finally, the land requirements for wind and solar are huge but not impossible. Unfortunately, to find enough land, we destroy or badly harm biodiversity of all types including forests, wetlands, mangroves and our precious and diminishing arable soils. Nuclear power requires less space despite the stupidity about radiation caused by fear.

Nuclear Now is a 2022 American documentary film, directed and co-written by Oliver Stone. It is a film that I would like everybody to watch. It is very long film and really has too much information for one sitting. I have provided a link to the film below. Do make use of the link while it still works.

There is also a book that I would love everybody to read. Jack Devaney makes some points that I believe should be considered by regulators in every country. The book is finally available as a paperback from a number of sources. It is a big book but even reading the beginning chapters and the final chapters is more than worthwhile.

The book is not as negative as the title “Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop”suggests. The book supplies many fascinating insights.

“Jack Devanney is the principal engineer and architect of the ThorCon molten salt reactor power plant. Since 2011 he has pursued his idea of using shipyard construction technology to mass-produce safe, inexpensive power plants that can bring the benefits of electricity to all the world, with no CO2 emissions. He married the advanced nuclear technology developed and demonstrated by Oak Ridge Laboratory with his own engineering experiences with ships, power plants, and energy.” – Amazon.com

Jack also speaks on Decouple and has lots of information and fascinating ideas on his Geordian Knot News.  http://jackdevanney.substack.com

Fear of Low Dose Radiation

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Low dose radiation has harmed few people, but the fear of radiation has killed thousands. I will back up this statement in future blogs.

Why do we fear radiation? Is it because we can’t see it, we can’t smell it, we can’t hear it? Yet many types of radiation are all around us and have been since the beginning of life on earth.

There are most types of radiation form a spectrum, yet evolution has only provided a very narrow window for our senses. We often call this window the visible spectrum, the colours of the rainbow, the light our eyes can see. Yet, if it was so important for our health that we needed to avoid all forms of radiation, why hasn’t evolution given us the tools to measure its intensity?

Advances in man’s technology have now provided the tools to measure the smallest amounts of low dose ionising radiation, tools such as Geiger counters and scintillation counters. I used scintillation counting extensively when I worked in biochemical and medical research.

We now know that our planet is bombarded from space by cosmic rays every day. The core of our planet is radioactive, and this helped to make life on earth possible by making the planet a little warmer. No matter where we live, radiation comes from the rocks below us. It is in the food we eat and the water we drink. The background levels in some places on earth are much higher than those in Australia.

Potassium is very important for the health of our bodies. All of this potassium contains a proportion of the radioactive  form of potassium, potassium 40. So, every time we eat a banana or a potato or indeed get enough veggies or protein in our diet, we take in potassium 40.

Uranium, a word that puts fear in many people’s hearts, is absolutely ubiquitous in our world. It is everywhere. At one stage of my career, I had a team of people and a laboratory truck that travelled all over the Northern Territory sampling streams and ground water. The lowest concentrations of uranium we ever saw were in waters downstream of Ranger and Jabiluka mine sites. Our radiological standards in Australia are pretty tough but even so the drinking water standards are tougher still. Uranium is far more dangerous as a heavy metal then as a source of radiation. Heavy metals do damage to our kidneys.

Instead of protecting us by making ionising radiation visible to us, evolution has protected us with biochemical mechanisms that prevent, and repair damage created by low dose radiation. When life began on earth, the radiation levels were at least four times greater than they are now and may have even been even 10 times greater.

We now know far more about the effects of low dose radiation on people and other forms of life than we do about most chemicals in our environment. I will share some of that information in future blogs.

2d Basics About Nuclear Power Plants and Waste

Source: Canadian Nuclear Association https://cna.ca/reactors-and-smrs/how-a-nuclear-reactorworks/

Canadian nuclear power reactors are CANDU reactors – heavy water reactors developed by Canadian scientists and engineers. CANDU stands for Canada deuterium uranium, because it uses deuterium oxide (heavy water) as a moderator and coolant and uses natural (not enriched) uranium as a fuel. There are 19 in operation in Canada and another 11 elsewhere in the world. India also has 16 nuclear reactors that are based on the CANDU model.

I have included this schematic because it shows other important elements of a nuclear power plant.  When used fuel rods are first taken from a reactor, they are both thermally and radioactively hot and must be cooled down.  They are placed in a special cooling pool close to the reactor, shown as “used fuel management.”

About a decade ago, my husband Dr David Jones was invited as a guest speaker on uranium mining at a conference in Sweden.  We took the opportunity to visit every nuclear facility we could and included all stages of nuclear waste management. I talked them into giving me a copy of the video below which shows some of the aspects of waste handling in Sweden. It is worth watching.

Click on the video to start it

2c How Does Nuclear Energy Work?

Ultimately, all the energy we use arises from some form of nuclear energy. The Sun’s energy reaches our planet as a result of nuclear reactions in the Sun itself. This energy is critical to our survival on Earth. The sun provides the energy for photosynthesis and hence all our food, wood, and dung. All the fossil fuels were created many millions of years ago from plants that derived their energy from the Sun. Differences in the heat from the Sun hitting Earth at different latitudes drives our climate engine. These differences in heat around the globe creates the wind that drives our wind turbines. Going back in time, it was nuclear reactions out in space that created the elements we find on Earth.

This video introduces the concepts of nuclear fission and can be found on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D91T-B-PVE0 if you have challenges making the embedded video work.

All the commercial nuclear power plants (NPP) operating today use nuclear fission as their source of heat energy. Optimism suggests we may be able to use nuclear fusion at some time in the future as an alternative to nuclear fission.

A great deal of energy holds the protons and neutrons of an element’s nucleus together. The heavier elements tend to degrade into lighter elements. Elements close to iron (Fe) in the periodic table are very stable. When elements come apart for whatever reason we call this nuclear fission. Because it takes less energy to hold the resulting smaller nuclei together, a lot of energy is released. Uranium and plutonium have excessively big nuclei and fall apart relatively easily depending on the number of neutrons present. Looking at the periodic table below, the heaviest elements are shaded in yellow, and they are all radioactive. The heaviest elements may only exist for minutes or seconds as they are so unstable. Some of the elements with smaller nuclei have minor isotopes that are radioactive, depending on the number of neutrons in their nuclei.

This schematic works for most types of electricity generation power plants operating today. In the case of nuclear power stations, the heat source is a nuclear fission reactor which creates hot, pressurised steam which turns a turbine. The fossil fuel power plants work in a similar manner. After use, the steam condenses back to water and recycles past the heat source again.

Cooling water is kept separate from the recycling water for many reasons. For example, condenser water, which is cooling water, can be sea water and  taken directly from the ocean and returned to it at a slightly higher temperature. Marine life, close to a variety of power stations, is slightly different to that a little further away. In most cases, the slight increase in temperature leads to a greater density of some marine species. Detrimental effects are not found. The boiler water is usually exceptionally clean water with special additives to keep pipes and pumps from eroding or clogging up.

The giant cooling stacks are part of many diverse types of power stations and only emit steam from cooling water.

Even hydroelectric and wind power work in an analogous manner to that shown on the top part of the diagram above. There is no heat source, the power to drive the turbines comes from rushing water or air. There is no need for a cooling system. However, even hydroelectric schemes can have a small impact on water temperatures both upstream and downstream of the power plants.

The energy of the spinning turbines becomes electrical energy by moving magnets within the electrical generator. This short video was  cut in my talks and was used just to remind us about electrical units. It has taken from MW vs. MWh: Do You Know Your Electric Units? https://www.enerdynamics.com

https://www.enerdynamics.com/Energy-Insider_Blog/MW-vs-MWh-Do-You-Know-Your-Electric-Units.aspx

Since the beginning of 2022, many countries in Europe are doing a U-turn away from closing down their nuclear power stations to planning new nuclear power plants.

The BWR type reactors work in exactly the same way as shown in the general schematic for a power plant.

Light-water reactors use ordinary water, also called light water, to produce steam to drive their turbines. Water also acts as a neutron moderator that slows neutrons down so more reactions can occur. Water absorbs too many neutrons to be used with unenriched natural uranium as fuel. So, the fuel used is enriched to 3-5% U238. Canada’s CANDU reactors can use natural uranium as fuel, but they are not light-water nuclear reactors. Instead, the reactor water used is heavy water.

PWRs have one more system that circulates water. Water passing through the reactors is separate to that in the circuit that drives the turbines. In order to generate steam efficiently, the “reactor water” is maintained at a high pressure and thus higher temperatures can be reached.

Many people visualise nuclear waste from reactors as a liquid. All highly radioactive waste is solid and contained in fuel rods within a fuel assembly and then kept within further layers of protective containment  More details about waste handling is presented in later blogs.

2a Does Nuclear Power have a Place?

Why are we planning on decarbonising our world? Well, there are lots of reasons including the chance for some entities to make lots of money. The main reason is illustrated below:

How are we doing? Well,  I am sure that I saw graphs for Australia showing that our methane and nitrous oxide levels were coming down and I put the methane reduction down to the reduction in our cattle and sheep numbers over the last decade or so. I cannot find my reference to those graphs despite my attempts at filing the information I have read in the last few months. The recent data for methane emissions show that our levels are rising (IEA Methane Tracker). I assume that this is probably due to fugitive emissions from the Queensland newly developed gas fields.

I must apologise, as I gave the wrong impression at the first presentation of this information at U3A in Atherton. I did not put this information up on the screen, it was only verbal but some of the attendees will remember my statement about Australia’s methane and nitrous oxide levels coming down.

One of the difficulties I have found when preparing my talks is a disparity in numbers between one source and another. However, it is clear that on a per capita basis, Australia emits some of the highest levels of CO2 and methane. Methane is emitted from wetlands and in quite substantial amounts. Worldwide, the fossil fuel industry seems to be working hard to control fugitive emissions and flaring as shown on the slide below. A few more years of data will clarify the level of methane emission as the flattening of the curve may be due in part to restricted travel during the COVID epidemic. Methane is emitted from wetlands and in quite substantial amounts.

The next few graphs come from the International Energy Agency (IEA) website https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics. It is obvious that the bulk of worldwide CO2 emissions arise from the use of the fossil fuels coal, gas and oil. Gas produces about half the CO2 compared to coal for the generation of the same amount of energy. All the fossil fuels are valuable commodities in their own right for the manufacture of many goods we take for granted in our modern lives. They form the feedstock for so many chemicals, and they are a finite resource. It is such a waste when we just burn them to produce energy. Coal is still needed for the production of steel and a substantial proportion of Australia’s coal exports are used for this purpose. Recent technologies such as the use of hydrogen for steelmaking offer hope for the future.

Nuclear power plants have been producing a steady supply of electricity for over 30 years, but nuclear power has not been used to supply energy for other purposes. Despite the rapidly increasing construction of solar and wind power, again these energy sources are only used for the production of electricity. One of the obvious ways to decarbonise our energy, is to use electricity as a replacement for the production of heat and for transportation. Some public transportation systems around the world have always been electric. Electric trucks have been used in some transport sectors for nearly a century. China has been remarkably busy building high-speed, electric train networks this century.

Unfortunately, some of the EU countries such as France, Sweden and Germany have been closing down some of their nuclear power plants earlier than needed. France has had some of the cleanest electricity in the world at cheap prices, but the push for replacement by wind energy has taken them in the wrong direction. In the last few months, a number of EU countries have taken a U-turn and are planning more nuclear power plants. There has also been a real push to improve efficiency of electricity use within the EU. As can assumed from the graph below, even France produces significant levels of CO2 due to the use of oil for heating and transportation.

Despite the billions of dollars and euros spent on erection of new wind farms, the percentage of electricity produced through wind power has not increased in the OECD countries. Indeed, the use of coal has increased while gas which produces half the CO2 compared to coal has gone down.

1 My Series of Lectures About Nuclear Power and The Challenges and Successes of Other Technologies for Lowering Atmospheric CO2

( Written 9 Feb 2022)

Early next month I will finally give a series of talks to our local University of the Third Age (U3A).  It is my way of sharing some of what I have learnt. The omicron variant of COVID-19 postponed many of my activities including these lectures.

The act of putting the presentations together, taught me how little I knew about these issues. I have learnt so much in the process. I have finally decided to present the contents of these lectures in my blog with encouragement from friends.

During the preparation of the talks, I spent many days being thrown from one viewpoint to another but did not stop until I had satisfied myself as to the basic facts. I have tried to take into account the biases and background of each source.

Luckily, I have been able to access many online university courses through EdX on topics ranging from batteries, electric cars, critical raw materials, energy economics, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, nuclear terrorism and “Living at the Nuclear Brink” plus “Nuclear Energy Science.”  (https://www.edx.org)

I have collected and read scientific papers, books, reports and articles, videos and films. Many of the graphs in these presentations have been taken directly from sources such the International Energy Agency (IEA).  The one below has been modified to make the labelling more visible.

Despite all the rhetoric about solar and wind power and all the gains made so far, Australia faces enormous challenges. Reducing our use of CO2 emitting energy sources will be a hard road as can be seen from the graph above from the International Energy Agency (IEA) of which Australia is a member. 

Unfortunately, we often equate energy with electricity which can give a very false picture despite our massive uptake of residential solar.  Are we counting the CO2 emitted during the manufacture of green technologies: battery storage, electric cars, wind turbines or solar panels? Energy use is only part of our emissions of greenhouse gases and electricity is only part of energy production/consumption.   Many positive changes sit on the horizon. For example, hydrogen could reduce the use of coal used in steel manufacture, but hydrogen still requires a lot of energy as electricity for its generation.

Australia’s energy production almost doubled between 1990 and 2020.  Until a decade ago, our CO2 emissions were also rapidly rising.  This rise has now flattened, principally due to greater use of gas over coal but gas prices could threaten this improvement. At best gas can only be a transition measure.  Our CO2 emissions rose by 45% between 1990 and 2020. (ref: https://www.iea.org/countries/australia)

Australia is the world’s 14th highest emitter, contributing just over 1 per cent of global emissions. The Australian Government tracks the nation’s greenhouse gases emissions through the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. (ref CSIRO) This a lot for a country with 0.3% of the world’s population.

We are one of the world’s highest green-house gas emitters per capita in lots of categories.  We have reduced methane and nitrous oxide emissions substantially but are still very high in world terms.  These gases are partly produced in the agricultural sector but changes in farming practices have already helped to halve these emissions.  (ref: https://ourworldindata.org)

Data varies from source to source and data is often grouped in different categories making comparisons very difficult, but the big pictures are clear.

Tasmania produces clean, green electricity according to a fascinating live site on electricity production around the world (https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/AUS-TAS   Approximately 60 % of Queensland electricity comes from coal and roughly 40 % from solar. The data I found on wind was sketchy.

The carbon intensity information below cleverly illustrates the differences energy source makes to carbon intensity of electricity generation.  Grant Chalmers created the video using data from http:/docs.co2signal.com.  Countries with lots of nuclear power and/or hydro have low carbon intensity per MW.

One of the issues not discussed enough relates to the materials needed for the green transition.  I have heard very little discussion of the lead-in time for all the new mines needed for essential materials.

Does nuclear power have a place?  Looking at world-wide statistics, it plays a huge role in those countries with low carbon intensities.

Until recently, my stance was that countries like Sweden could safely use nuclear power because they developed and implemented long term policies. When Australia could not even manage low level waste sensibly, I doubted we could safely use nuclear power.

Recently, many countries are changing their views about nuclear power. Currently, Australia has a ban on nuclear power but has a research reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney producing medical isotopes.

Good background knowledge is essential for meaningful discussions about Australia’s energy future.  By sharing my journey, I hope to put others on a pathway to learning more about low carbon technologies and the challenges we face.

The first of the series of talks is called Why Do We Fear Nuclear Power?

It is presented as a series of 6 blogs which are labelled a to f so that they can be accessed in a logical order.

The second and third lectures examine the question

Does Nuclear Power have a Place in the Era of Decarbonisation?

The final lecture in the series is called Nuclear Power for Today and Tomorrow