nuclear-news

Health Risks of Nuclear Power: Report

June 17 2012

 

“…Assessment of nuclear health risks proves to be a complicated and multilayered issue. The first layer concerns the technical aspects and empirical observations. The second layer comprises the views and perspective of the nuclear industry and the information flow on nuclear matters to the public and to decision makers. The third layer concerns the relationship between health risks and common economic views….”

 

“…

Starting point of this study is formed the following observations:

•  The generation of nuclear energy irrevocably goes together with the generation of immense amounts of human-made radioactivity.
• Radioactivity cannot be destroyed.
• Radioactivity cannot be made harmless to humans.

Nuclear power involves the mobilization of naturally occurring radioactivity and the generation of human-made radioactivity, a billionfold of the mobilized natural radioactivity. Each reactor of 1 GWe power generates each year as much radioactivity as 1000 exploded nuclear weapons (Hiroshima bombs).
Nuclear health risks are posed by the spread of radioactive substances into the environment. Non-radioactive substances posing health risks are not included in this study to limit its scope….”

 

“…Furthermore there is strong empirical evidence that damage also occurs in cells not directy hit by radiation: the so-called non-targeted and delayed effects (e.g. the bystander effect), via unknown mechanisms. Adverse health effects from low radiation doses might be far more serious than previously assumed on the basis of the classic dose-effect models….”

 

“…

The pathways of tritium and carbon-14 into the human body via drinking water and the food chain are briefly discussed. The biomedical effects of these two biochemically very active radionuclides in the human body are not well understood. Both tritium and carbon-14 are released on daily routine basis in large quantities by nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage facilities and reprocessing plants, under nominal operating conditions.

Health risks of nuclear power are exacerbated by the fact that a number of hazardous radionuclides are difficult to detect, such as tritium, carbon-14 and iodine-129. These radionuclides are routinely discharged into the environment.
But also numerous other hazardous radionuclides in scrap and debris, including some actinides, are hard to detect by commonly used radiation detectors and so these radionuclides can easily enter the public domain….”

 

“…

Information on nuclear matters to the public and politicians originates almost exclusively from institutions with vested interests in nuclear power, for example IAEA, WNA, NEA, NEI, and from the nuclear industry itself, e.g. Areva and EdF.
There are strong connections between the IAEA and UNSCEAR and ICRP and consequently these institutions do not operate independently of each other.

Even the World Health Organization (WHO) cannot operate independently of the IAEA on nuclear matters.

The nuclear industry has a habit of Après nous le déluge by postponing indefinitively the actions required to deal adequately with the human-made radioactivity. The assertion of the World Nuclear Association, representing the Western nuclear industy, that all safety matters are fully under control is in flagrant contradiction to the practice…”

 

“…

A nuclear reactor discharges significant amounts of radioactivity into the environment, even when operating nominally. Empirical evidence points to seriously adverse health effects of these ‘routine releases’, as mentioned above.

Reprocessing plants are extremely polluting. All gaseous radionuclides from spent fuel are released into the air. A great deal of the chemically mobile radionuclides are released into the sea, along with a significant fraction of the uranium, plutonium and other actinides from the spent fuel. Separation processes never go to completion (a consequence of the Second Law), so unavoidably a fraction of the radionuclides from the spent fuel end up in the waste streams of the reprocessing plant….”

 

“…

Furthermore the nuclear system hides the potential of severe accidents of extremely large spatial extent and long timescales. Such accidents, which may pale the Chernobyl disaster, are possible even with ‘inherently safe’ reactors (which do not exist). Several scenarios are conceivable, involving nuclear reactors, spent fuel cooling ponds and reprocessing plants. A number of risk enhancing factors are discussed, some technical, other non-technical.

The chances of severe accidents and the magnitude of the imposed health risks increase with time for three reasons:

• rapidly increasing amounts of human-made radioactive materials in mobile state
• unavoidable deterioration of materials and constructions
• increasing economic pressure.

Nuclear facilities are vulnerable to terroristic attacks. Severe accidents could also be initiated by hostile actions in an armed conflict anywhere in the world. The consequences of a Chernobyl- type accident do not stop at our borders.

The use of MOX fuel in civil nuclear reactors poses a great risk for terroristic use of plutonium in primitive but effective bombs….”

 

http://www.dianuke.org/health-risks-of-nuclear-power/

 

 

 

August 21, 2012 - Posted by arclight2011 | Uncategorized