The significance of the whole 170-page document however is that it is more than 25 years since US citizens have had to worry about energy supplies, but now there are several reasons for them to do so, beyond the immediate shock from California. Fossil fuel production and use is now a global warming concern, oil and gas prices are rising with the implication of tight supplies, and the increased plant utilisation arising from electricity deregulation has now been largley realised. The new policy is a call for US citizens to think about issues closer to survival than self-fulfilment, about matters they have long taken for granted or treated as merely questions of consumer choice ("do you wish to cook your dinner with coal, wind or nuclear electricity?"). The Californian electricity debacle has helped validate the need for such a review, and will reinforce Congressional resolve when legislation is needed on some of its recommendations.
Electricity
In the last 15 years there has been little base-load generating capacity added in the USA, and the modest demand growth has been largely met by increased efficiencies arising from deregulation. Plants themselves have become more productive and competitive, and their output has been sold more widely. In the case of nuclear power there has been a growth in utilisation of plant from average 65% of capacity in 1990 to 90% of capacity last year. There is obviously much less scope left for further such growth in utilisation of existing plant, so new plants will be needed soon.
The other limiting factor has been adequacy of high-voltage transmission lines connecting the four regional grids. This is addressed in the proposal for eminent domain to apply for construction of interstate transmission lines, giving right of way as for gas pipelines (and as for such infrastructure facilities virtually everywhere else in the world). It is estimated that 50,000 km of new high-voltage transmission lines will be required in the next decade to establish a proper national grid, and expediting this will be one of the most important challenges before Congress.
The report notes that nuclear power provides 20% of US electricity, and more than 40% in some regions, and that the cost of electricity generation by nuclear plants compares favourably with that from other sources. It acknowledges that use of nuclear energy has grown more than that of coal, gas or renewables through the 1990s. In the few pages devoted to it, the report reviews the nuclear energy state of affairs in the USA and recommends "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy." A number of specific components of this recommendation effectively rehearse the present situation or relate to current legislation, but are important for public understanding. The thrust of them is reduction of regulatory inertia while maintaining safety standards.
The last US nuclear power reactor to come on line was Watts Bar, in 1996. Before that was Comanche Peak-2 in 1993. They had been ordered in the early 1970s. None are currently under construction.
Spent nuclear fuel
Some recommendations concern conditioning or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. In the early 1970s US operators shared European expectations that the hitherto open fuel cycle would be closed by recycling the plutonium and leftover uranium in spent fuel, and a couple of reprocessing plants were built in USA, notably a large one at Barnwell, South Carolina. However, President Carter then banned reprocessing because of concerns about weapons proliferation arising from the separated plutonium. In the event, Europe and Japan proceeded with the closed fuel cycle, and no weapons proliferation has resulted from this. In any case, the plutonium recovered from power reactor fuel is highly unsuitable for weapons. (It is salutary to recall that 35 years ago it was widely expected that by now there would be 20 to 30 countries with nuclear weapons, instead of the five then and seven we now have).
The significance of the waste treatment or reprocessing recommendations remains to be seen, but at least they amount to a renunciation of a stance which has, in the light of the enormous success of the safeguards regime under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, been shown as unduly restrictive and conservative. In the USA, the government basically owns all spent fuel, and was to take it over and remove it from storage at the power plant sites from 1998.
Popular delusions
The report should lay to rest two delusions:
First is the delusion that what is true at the margin, on the role of energy efficiency in eliminating the need for new generating capacity, can be applied indefinitely, let alone in a growing economy. Ultimately, and as the cost of improving energy efficiency escalates, it is necessary to build new plant.
Allied to this has been the delusion that sun and wind can be harnessed to replace base-load capacity which provides continuous, reliable power on a large scale. With the welcome addition of substantial renewables capacity to several grids, it is now more obvious what these sources can contribute and what they cannot. A recent European Wind Energy Association Ð Greenpeace report acknowledged that a 20% contribution from wind to grid supply was about the theoretical maximum, economic factors aside.
Nevertheless, this US report calls for extending and expanding the 1.7 cent/kWh tax credit for electricity produced from wind and biomass, and proposes a 15% tax credit for residential solar energy plant. It suggests that "by 2020, non-hydropower renewable energy is expected to account for 2.8% of total electricity generation", compared with 2% today (mostly from geothermal and biomass).
Conservation and efficiency
Coal gets nearly as much space as nuclear energy, and there is a recommendation to spend $2 billion over ten years for research on clean coal technology, vastly more than for all nuclear energy development in the federal budget (corresponding initiatives amounting to less than $30 million in this year's budget).
Energy conservation is a major emphasis of the report. Energy use per capita has increased slightly since 1970, though Americans today use only 57% as much energy per unit of production as they did then. Buildings are better insulated and other savings have been made, but compared with other parts of the world where energy is more expensive, there is much room for progress. There is a large raft of recommendations addressing energy efficiency, including tax breaks for homeowners and tax credits for purchase of petrol-electric hybrid cars, reportedly worth $4 billion. Federal agencies will be required to add an energy impact statement to their routine environmental one for new projects.
Whether a review of energy priorities such as this expresses a moral vision, a statesman's view forward, political pragmatism or even occasionally political pay-offs, it provides a welcome opportunity to reassess the institutional and ideological baggage of the last few decades and change course. The implications are much wider than the USA alone.
The head of the US Nuclear Energy Institute welcomed the strong message to Wall Street and to young people considering careers in engineering. "More importantly we applaud the President's leadership in recognizing that nuclear energy is an indispensable component of our energy mix, that it will be around for a very long time, and that we need more of it in the future". The NEI envisages the addition of some 50,000 MWe of nuclear capacity in USA by 2020.
US National Energy Policy, FT 18/5/01, IHT 19/5/01, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 21/5/01.
New reports on Yucca Mountain as US repository.
Four reports have been released by the US Energy Dept, addressing the use and suitability of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site for disposal of US spent fuel. Evolving design changes mean that the repository will remain accessible for up to 300 years, will be cooler than earlier envisaged, and will therefore cost more.
A 900-page Science & Engineering Report summarises the results of scientific and engineering studies completed over the last 20 years and shows that the rock is stable, capable of enduring high heat loads, and overall has characteristics which will enable it to isolate the wastes from people almost indefinitely. This report also puts forward the concept of flexible design, while a supplement to the Draft EIS notes that "design options and operating modes are being explored to reduce uncertainties and improve long-term repository performance and operational safety and efficiency". An Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Costs and an assessment of the Nuclear Waste Fund adequacy find that the 0.1 cent/kWh charged to nuclear electric consumers will cover outlays despite the higher cost. It recommends that the fee not be changed.
These reports appear to support the scientific basis of site selection and clear the way for approval of the site later this year as the US spent fuel repository. A public comment period is now open until 25 June and a further report, on Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, is expected in July.
NucNet news # 167/01, SpentFuel 7/5/01, US Federal Register 4/5/01, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 14/5/01.
New energy policy includes revival of reprocessing.
Two recommendations in the new US National Energy Policy concern conditioning and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. A large civil reprocessing plant was in fact built at Barnwell, South Carolina, but was mothballed when President Carter banned reprocessing due to proliferation concerns. It is now proposed that the USA should work with those (eg Cogema and BNFL) who have proceeded with reprocessing and use of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel to develop such technologies.
The reprocessing and MOX recommendation is in line with current moves for disposing of up to 33 tonnes of ex-weapons plutonium, incorporating it in MOX so that it is burned and degraded to achieve non-proliferation goals. A consortium including the utility Duke Power, a US Cogema subsidiary, and contracting firm Stone & Webster won the contract to build a MOX fuel fabrication plant whose product will be loaded into two Duke reactors from about 2007.
Reuters 8/5/01, National Energy Policy 17/5/01.
US utilities and Indian tribe contest Utah ban.
A consortium of eight of the smaller US utility companies running 20 of the nation's reactors has been proceeding with a proposal to store 44,000 tonnes of spent fuel in a storage facility constructed on land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians. A draft EIS has indicated no problems and a government safety evaluation has been positive. However, six laws have been passed by the state of Utah to head off the proposal by the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) consortium. These laws are now being challenged by PFS plus the Skull Valley Goshutes, on the basis that they are unconstitutional. The Indian chairman called the state's legislation "a direct attack" on the tribe's sovereignty, though he supported state involvement in licensing the facility.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 23/4/01.
US Business Council quantifies Californian costs.
As the first summer blackouts occur, the US Business Council has released a study which projects almost US$ 22 billion in lost productivity and 135,000 lost jobs in California from the rolling blackouts and reduced working weeks expected through the next few months. The figures, effectively for non-provision of generating capacity in one year, are comparable with those for building more than 10,000 MWe of new base-load capacity, double the state's shortfall. Washington and Oregon states have low hydro reserves and will be unable to supply much to California this summer.
The Business Council figures were supported by estimates from the North American Electric Reliability Council, representing industry, federal and state grid managers. The NERC said Californians could expect 260 hours of rolling blackouts over summer, up to 15 hours per week, despite the expectation that substantially (up to 37%) higher electricity prices will cut the peak load by over 3000 MWe. NERC warned that New York city and New England could face blackouts also.
Reuters 9/5/01, Financial Times 16/5/01.
Public opinion swings to nuclear energy.
For the first time in two decades and leading up to the release of the new National Energy Policy, US media have been running editorials and features which express either explicit support for nuclear energy and in particular, expanding its role in USA, or at least put it in a very positive light. This appears to be the result of California's electricity crisis, despite the state strongly embracing renewable energy sources, and the rising price of natural gas changing the economics of that source of fuel, as well as ongoing greenhouse concerns. After several positive newspaper editorials a CNN feature showed that politicians were coming out more vocally in support of what had been obvious to many for some time: "it is no longer as politically dangerous for members of Congress to be pro-nuclear". A senior industry figure on CNN reminded viewers that US nuclear plants were safe, reliable, competitive and performing at levels exceeding any others.
A March survey had showed that public support for building new nuclear power plants had increased to two thirds of the population, up 24% over 18 months and 15% since January. The most pronounced increase was in the West, where 62% supported new plants compared with only 33% in 1999. Overall 81% said it was very important for President and Congress to deal urgently with energy policies, while reliable supply and environment protection were the top goals in this.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 2 & 23/4/01, Washington Post 22/4/01.
There are four operating Bruce B reactors (4 x 860 MWe), and Bruce Power plans to restart two Bruce A units 3 & 4 (each 769 MWe). The decision on the latter is the outcome of a feasibility study on all four Bruce A units. The units have operated for 19-20 years at a capacity factor of about 70%.
Recommissioning the two older reactors, which were shut down and defuelled three years ago, will cost about C$ 340 million over the next two years. Bruce Power is primarily taking over the Bruce B power station and expects that performance improvements on that plus restarting the two Bruce A units will add 2000 MWe of capacity to Ontario. Bruce Power will be the first non-government owned operator of nuclear reactors in Canada.
NucNet business news # 35/01, UNECAN News 13/4/01, CNSC 9/5/01.
Canada introduces spent fuel legislation.
The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act before Canada's parliament arises from the government response in December 1998 to the report of the Environment Assessment Panel reviewing the concept for geological disposal of spent Canadian nuclear fuel. Since then there has been a consultative process resulting in the legislation.
The Act will require the commercial utilities which own the used fuel to set up a non-profit Waste Management Organisation (WMO) which will, within three years, propose a storage/disposal strategy to the government. Then (after a Cabinet decision) the WMO will implement this strategy for both for commercial spent fuel and (for a fee) the spent nuclear fuel owned by AECL. The Act also requires the owners of used nuclear fuel to establish a trust fund to cover the future used fuel management and disposal costs.
The three years allowed for the WMO to make its proposals provides time for the WMO to develop detailed studies of the other options (e.g. on-site storage and centralised surface storage) which were not in the earlier geological disposal concept report prepared by AECL. The legislation would lead to a government decision without the need for referring the proposals to yet another review by an Environment Assessment Panel.
French debate MOX recycling.
The question of whether spent MOX fuel is reprocessed or treated as waste has been canvassed in France. The utility EDF says it intends eventually to reprocess all of it, but not before 2020. Cogema has emphasised, in connection with 300 tonnes of spent MOX from EDF, that it has "neither the possibility nor the will to transform La Hague (where half of it is stored) into a disposal facility". The degraded plutonium recovered from spent MOX is technically and economically unattractive to recycle further in existing French reactors, but this will not necessarily be the case with future types. The average length of storage of spent fuel at La Hague before reprocessing is now eight years, but with wide variation according to burnup and heat levels.
NuclearFuel 14/5/01.
New Russian reactors.
Russia's new Rostov-1 reactor (950 MWe) has been connected to the grid.
Russian utility Rosenergoatom has announced the start of work on a new fast neutron reactor at Beloyarsk, where the world's only remaining commercial-scale fast reactor (BN-600) has been in operation since 1980. Beloyarsk-4 will be the first of an anticipated series of BN-800 designs capable of using ex-military plutonium as fuel, and is expected to be completed in 2009.
NucNet news # 115 & 173/01.
French record for nuclear electric export.
The French utility EdF has reported domestic sales of 397.5 billion kWh and exports of 77.3 billion kWh, the total worth EUR 34 billion, for 2000. Revenue from outside the domestic market was 25% of total.
NucNet business news # 32/01.
French court clears ANSTO spent fuel.
A French appeal court has confirmed that Cogema has all the necessary authorisations to unload and store spent fuel from ANSTO's research reactor at Lucas Heights for reprocessing at La Hague. It said that the local court which previously halted unloading had no authority to do so and fined Greenpeace FF 20,000 under the country's Code of Civil Procedure.
NucNet news # 119/01.
France urged to boost plutonium burning effort.
The French parliamentary commission responsible for evaluating science and technology options has recommended that the country becomes more directly involved with an advanced reactor program which will enable a relatively rapid reduction in Russian stocks of weapons plutonium. The gas turbine modular helium reactor (GT-MHR) it refers to is a General Atomics design from USA which is being developed in Russia in partnership with Minatom, with French (Framatome ANP) and Japanese (Fuji) participation and some US government funding. It offers particular advantages for burning MOX in that it is claimed that up to 90% of the plutonium is consumed. The preliminary reactor design should be completed this year.
NucNet news # 126/01, Framatome press release 7/1/99, cf Advanced Reactor paper.
French doctors sound alarm on radiation.
A new association of radiobiologists, radiotherapy and radiation protection professors has been formed in France to combat fear of radiation at ordinary background and medical dose levels. The association, FE3R, is concerned that patients will refuse treatment involving ionising radiation for themselves and their children because of ill-founded fears of cancers, especially thyroid cancer, and congenital deformities. The fears have been generated by perceptions of effects from the Chernobyl accident in 1986. However, the incidence of thyroid cancer in France was not changed by Chernobyl, and even around Chernobyl itself there was no change in the rate of congenital deformities in newborn children, though media coverage of those which exist (as in any population) has contributed greatly to a fear of radiation in western Europe. Misuse of the linear non-threshold hypothesis which is applied for radiation protection purposes is behind much of the fear, so that reducing the allowable dose to 1 mSv/yr, 1% of the lowest dose known to cause any harm, has had the principal effect of increasing people's anxiety.
Nucleonics Week 12/4/01.
UK developments on MOX manufacture.
BNFL, the UK nuclear services group, has signed an agreement with the major German utility E.ON (also its largest nuclear generator) to convert all plutonium separated from E.ON's spent fuel into fresh mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in Germany. BNFL's new MOX plant at Sellafield has not yet received government permission to operate, and MOX fabrication is currently undertaken at a smaller pilot plant whose shortcomings for routine production have been much publicised. The agreement was the largest single MOX contract for BNFL and strengthened the case for commissioning the new plant. Transports of spent fuel from Germany to Sellafield for reprocessing resumed in April after a political hiatus.
Since then a further agreement has been signed to fabricate MOX fuel for Sweden's Oskarshamn power plant, bringing the contacted volume for the Sellafield plant to economic break-even. Subject to Swedish government approval for its use, the MOX will be fabricated from 900 kg of plutonium recovered when Oskarshamn spent fuel was reprocessed prior to Sweden's present direct disposal policy.
The UK government has appointed a consulting firm to examine yet again the economic case for operating the new MOX plant. Meanwhile BNFL had found it hard to line up contracts because of the uncertainty. The plant was built with customers in Japan, Germany and Switzerland principally in mind.
Meanwhile another study of UK plutonium disposition options has suggested that immobilisation in a ceramic waste form may be cheaper than burning the plutonium as MOX fuel, despite the income from electricity. Eight of the 11 immobilisation options considered for the eventual 106 tonnes of UK Pu involve using BNFL's Sellafield MOX plant to produce a ceramic similar to fuel. However, bringing any such ceramic product to the 'spent fuel standard' (of having high gamma activity to deter misuse) would make it more expensive than the straightforward MOX route. The authors are members of the UK Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, but were working independently of BNFL. The MOX route projected involves a one-third MOX core in the UK's largest reactor at Sizewell and four new Westinghouse AP-600 reactors with full MOX cores.
BNFL had earlier proposed to the UK government that the country's growing stockpile of separated plutonium be turned into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and used in a new dedicated power reactor which is capable of taking a full load of MOX. Both the Westinghouse AP-600/1000 and System 80+ advanced reactor designs would be suitable, and could be built close to the fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield.
Britain now has over 60 tonnes of Pu, both civil and surplus military, comprising about a quarter of the world's inventory of separated plutonium. British Energy, which operates the Sizewell-B reactor capable of burning one third MOX in its core, is unwilling to make the modifications necessary and embrace the MOX fuel cycle.
Nucleonics Week 19 & 26/4/01, NuclearFuel 30/4 & 14/5/01, Financial Times 2/5/01, NucNet business news #39/01, SpentFuel 14/5/01.
Russian spent fuel import bills passed.
Russia's Duma has approved draft laws allowing the import of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and storage. After substantial and emotive discussion, three bills have now been cleared for a third reading, expected in May, before being passed to the upper house where their progress is expected to be straightforward. The bills' first reading was passed overwhelmingly in December, but questions then arose regarding how US$ 20 billion in revenues might be used and a proposal to allow leasing of Russian-made fuel to foreign utilities was withdrawn from consideration and some changes to licensing procedures were added
The key bill, an amendment to Article 50 of the Environment Protection Act to allow import of radioactive wastes, was passed by 224 to 114 with 7 abstentions (compared with 320 in favour on the first reading). The second bill amended the Atomic Energy law to change licensing procedures and was supported by 244 votes to 114 (cf 318 for in first reading). A new law on waste disposal and cleanup programs for radioactively contaminated territories attracted 267 votes to 67 (cf 319 in first reading).
Russia's new atomic energy minister, Mr Rumyanstev, pointed out that his "nuclear energy sector is perhaps one of the few where we maintain a high technological level." In the light of this he enthused that "we shall be able to increase 3- or 4-fold the reprocessing of our own spent nuclear fuel, to create many well-paid jobs and, of principal importance, to improve our competitive position in the international market for spent fuel reprocessing services." However, "we will not allow Russia to be turned into a nuclear waste dump", he said.
Russia is seeking Japan's involvement as a business partner in its plans to reprocess international spent fuel. Part of the concept is that Russia would sell fresh fuel to Japan and this would be returned for reprocessing.
NucNet news # 137/01, Reuters 19/4/01, SpentFUEL 23/4/01, NuclearFuel 30/4/01, NMR 30/4/01.
Pakistan and China discuss new reactor.
Pakistan has started negotiations with China regarding construction of a second unit at the nuclear power plant at Chasma. The first, a 323 MWe pressurised water reactor built by China, was started up last year. The new unit would be 600 MWe and have greater local content.
TradeTech NMR 13 & 30/4/01.
Nuclear energy forecast substantially upgraded.
The US Energy Information Administration publishes each year an International Energy Outlook. That for 2001, with the reference case looking forward to 2010 in particular, substantially upgrades the EIA forecast for nuclear power's contribution to world energy. The upgrade is driven by the expectation that the developing world will more than double its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, plus positive developments in many industrialised countries, including plant life extension and better plant performance. However it is dampened by strongly negative perceptions of the situation in USA and Europe. The EIA now expects that nuclear will provide 10% more electricity in 2015 than 1999, which is less pessimistic than two years ago when it forecast a 2% drop to 2015.
EIA IEO2001, NucNet news # 114/01.
World uranium production up, price follows.
In 2000, uranium mine production appears to have increased about 12% over 1999 to about 41,000 t U3O8 (34,750 tU). This is primarily due to Canadian and Australian increases (30% and 27% respectively), but supported by Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Central African production declined slightly following closure of the Gabon mine, southern Africa held steady, and US production dropped.
This year has seen a steady improvement in price, with the spot market rising 25% to May.
Ux Weekly 26/3/01, NMR 18/5/01.
Recycling of warheads ahead of schedule.
The US and Russia are 40% ahead of schedule in converting 500 tonnes of Russian nuclear warhead uranium into civil nuclear fuel for power generation. So far, about 113 tonnes has been blended down, equivalent to about 4500 warheads. The US$ 12 billion program is progressing under a 1994 agreement which calls for some 30 tonnes per year to be processed at this stage, displacing over 10,000 tonnes of U3O8 production and supplying about 15% of world reactor demand.
NucNet news # 122/01.
Russia deters financing for plutonium disposition, as US plans falter.
Having secured agreement in principle for western financing of Russian disposition of weapons plutonium, Russia is now proposing to market the resulting mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in the west rather than burning it all in Russia. This raises commercial questions which were not part of the original deal.
The context is that USA and Russia agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014. The US would fund its own program (part MOX, part immobilisation within high-level wastes) and the G-7 nations would fund some US$ 1 billion to set up Russia's program, which is wholly MOX-oriented. G-7 governments made it clear that Russia's operating costs were to be self-funding from the domestic electricity produced. However, it is now estimated that MOX costs here will be substantially more than Russian electricity revenues, which is why Russia is canvassing its "western option" for selling MOX. Meanwhile, technical progress is being made, the French will donate MOX technology and experience, and there is a July target for financing arrangements.
In USA the dual track approach has become lopsided. The consortium retained and funded to implement the MOX program (for 8.5 tPu) has applied for a construction permit, but the Department of Energy has deferred the US$ 1.2 billion funding for the immobilisation program (for 25.5 tPu). The plutonium immobilisation plant would incorporate the Pu in a version of Synroc, and encase small discs of this in canisters of vitrified high-level radioactive waste, providing a deterrent to its recovery.
NuclearFuel 19/3/01, SpentFUEL 26/3/01, cf briefing paper.
Cogema boss defends reprocessing.
The Chairman and CEO of Cogema, Anne Lauvergeon, has issued a strong public defence of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde shortly after the legal proceedings involving Australian research reactor fuel, she pointed out that reprocessing and recycling was "encouraged by ecologists in all industrial sectors except nuclear. I don't understand the difference." It "allows the volume of [high-level] waste to be reduced five-fold and the toxicity ten-fold, as well as making it inert through vitrification," and is "the best way we know of limiting risk."
NucNet news # 125/01.
For each source deemed controllable, the first consideration is to restrict doses to the individual and then make exposures as low as reasonably practicable. The major change from present practice under ICRP-60 is to place individual protective action before optimisation on a broader basis. A major practical outcome will be that the much misused and misunderstood concept of collective dose is removed from centre stage, with its consequences in exposing a few individuals to higher doses in order to reduce already infinitesimal doses to many others.
Nucleonics Week 17/5/01, J.Radiol.Prot. 21, 113-123.
New evidence on effects of low-level radiation.
A long-term study of 300,000 people living with natural background radiation levels of about 200 mSv per year has yielded further information on the effects of such radiation. The study was undertaken by the Regional Cancer Centre in Kerala state, India, and the families of people concerned had mostly lived there, on thorium-bearing sands, for generations. Each person was medically examined, their internal and external dose rates were assessed, and the radiation levels in the entire area were mapped. The results over several decades show that cancer incidence is lower than in the rest of India and the life-span is longer. This may not support the hormesis theory that low levels of radiation have a beneficial effect, since there are socio-economic differences with much of India, but it does appear to show that exceptionally high radiation background has no adverse health effect.
A similar study is planned for areas where background levels are even higher. China and Japan are pooling data with India, and so far no adverse effects from high natural background levels have been observed.
Nuclear Issues 23,4; April 2001.
Chernobyl effects debated.
The UNSCEAR assessment of the effects of the Chernobyl accident has been supported by four eminent Russian scientists writing in the IAEA Bulletin. They point out "that in all the years since the Chernobyl accident there has been no significant divergence either in the overall mortality rate or the cancer rate mortality rate among the population of the contaminated areas of Russia. The risk of death from [cancers including leukaemias] among the population of the Bryansk Region - the most highly contaminated in Russia - both before and after the accident does not differ significantly in statistical terms from the figures for Russia as a whole."
The incidence of cancer however is increasing in all the areas of Russia, including the contaminated areas, but this is a general phenomenon and "comparisons between the pre-accident and post-accident periods, and with other areas of Russia indicate that the Chernobyl factor has had no influence on this increase".
The findings with regard to the clean-up workers, who generally received higher doses of radiation than the general public, and 180,000 of whom were monitored, are even more striking. While there is some "evidence for an increase in leukaemia mortality among Russian clean-up staff", "the overall mortality rate among clean-up staff was statistically lower than [that] of the control group from the public over all the years following the accident. This can be attributed partly to the 'healthy worker effect', better medical treatment, etc. No relationship between dose and mortality has been found."
The Russian scientists also pointed out that there is no evidence of increased cancer for short-term whole-body exposure levels of less than 100 mSv or chronic exposure of 200 mSv, so these figures represented a "practical threshold for risk assessment".
Another study from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland had used linear no-threshold (LNT) approach to estimate 9000 to 33,000 hypothetical fatal cancers from Chernobyl, while the Russian response on much the same basis suggested 1000-4500 and that this would be reduced up to 100-fold if "applying the practical threshold for risk assessment proposed". The Paul Scherrer authors then responded, agreeing that the 100 mSv acute and 200 mSv chronic exposure levels were as stated "and support the conclusion that introduction of a 'practical threshold' to dose calculations would greatly reduce the estimated potential health effects of the accident." "The Russian approach, based on a threshold hypothesis, may be right, and we personally think it is reasonable to apply it for providing the best estimates." "Greater professional dialogue on the rationale of the LNT approach" is needed.
IAEA Bulletin 42,4; Dec 2000.
Chernobyl studies disagree on genetic damage.
A scientific paper published in UK has presented evidence of higher genetic alteration in the children of Chernobyl clean-up workers. The study compares 41 children conceived after the accident with 22 born before it and an external control group of 28. The parents concerned are thought to have had relatively low doses of radiation, but the levels are unknown. The study shows up changes to DNA "most of whose consequences may be neutral or nearly neutral for their carriers". The authors conclude that "the small contribution of these changes to genetic risk does not exclude the possibility of prolonged effects".
Another study however in an equally reputable journal and using similar DNA analysis shows no elevation of genetic alteration in such children.
NucNet news # 171/01, Nucleonics Week 17/5/01.
Reactor table
Sustainable energy
Advanced reactors
Mixed oxide fuel
Global warming
Uranium markets
World uranium mining
Military warheads as source of fuel
Glossary
Jabiluka background
See also Uranium Exchange graphs
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@mpx.com.au
fax (03) 9629 7207