This week, Boris Johnson reaffirmed the UK Government's commitment to nuclear energy.
But six sites identified in the country for replacement of aging nuclear reactors have been identified’ three of which have now been abandoned, two are awaiting approval and only one is under construction. So is it time to rethink our approach to nuclear power?
Consider this outline: When you talk to climate scientists, you
soon realize that they are more concerned about the dangers of global warming
than most of us. Some tell you privately that they have been counseled’ to deal
with the psychological effects of knowing that the world is facing an impending
catastrophe and that it is not being done enough.
In the meantime, talk to experts on the effects of ionizing
radiation and you will find that they are surprisingly relieved of the dangers
posed by low levels of exposure to human health - certainly more so than most
people. Are less
Despite the public outcry over this form of energy, it is
difficult to see how the UK government can meet its carbon reduction targets
without new nuclear weapons. Not least because of the massive increase in
demand for electricity in decarbonizing transport and home heating.
Nuclear dream
All you have to do is watch HBO's amazing drama Chernobyl to
understand people's fears.
Who can see the bodies of power plant workers when they are in
the hospital and not afraid of radiation?
You will have even more trouble if you make online rabbit hole
the centerpiece
Estimates of the number of deaths from the Chernobyl disaster
that you may encounter there quickly spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
Some studies claim that one million people have already died
from the toxic plague that has spread across Europe since the accident back in
April 1986.
Real number
Any idea how many deaths could really be directly linked’ to
Chernobyl?
Take care of yourself.
According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on Nuclear
Radiation (UNSCER), the exposure to radiation killed 28 plant workers and
emergency workers.
There were more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in children
or adolescents at the time of the accident. Fortunately, because thyroid cancer
survival rates are so good, by 2005 only 15 cases had been fatal.
And according to UNSCEAR, these deaths could have been’ avoided.
He says the cancers were’ caused "almost entirely" by Soviet
authorities' failure to stop people from drinking radioactive
iodine-contaminated milk.
But, even if we join them, according to the United Nations, in
2005, only 43 deaths could be directly responsible for the world's worst
nuclear catastrophe.
Radiation experts say the actual death toll, which could be directly attributed’ to Chernobyl, will eventually be slightly higher.
What about low-level radiation exposure?
But what about all the other people who have been exposed to
radiation? The Chernobyl disaster has been calculated’ to be 400 times more
radioactive than the bombs found on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What the United Nations says: "To date, there is no
convincing evidence of other health effects in the general population, which
could be attributed to radiation exposure."
Even among the millions of people involved in cleaning the area
around the reactor, there is "no evidence of health effects that can be
attributed to radiation exposure." In addition to a small and unconfirmed
increase in leukemia and a slightly higher incidence of cataracts.
And remember, these figures are not from a flight at night. The
United Nations is a part of what has been called the "unprecedented effort
of the international community" to assess the health effects of the
accident.
So is Chernobyl going to show any kind of radiation?
This is not the case, as evidenced by the evidence of other
nuclear events.
Let's start with the big ones.
Let's go back to the moment when the world was awakened’ by the
power of nuclear energy: in August 1945, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
The blasts caused massive casualties - more than 200,000 people
were’ killed.
The death toll is not very reliable due to the post-surrender
chaos in Japan, but we do know that the physical impact of the two explosions
caused by the two bombs and the extreme heat caused the deaths. Most of the
people died.
Thousands of people were also exposed’ to high levels of
radiation, and many of them exploded immediately. He died in the following
weeks.
But, just like in Chernobyl, the long-term effects of ongoing
radiation have been less dramatic than expected.
How do we know what the effects of the bombs were?
We know because, once again, there has been a very complete,
international study that estimated the health effects on some 120,000 people
that began in the late 1940s and continues to this day. Is.
So where did the predictions of tens of
thousands of deaths come from?
The death toll is’ estimated.
It is well established’ that moderate and
high levels of radiation can lead to poor health and can be fatal.
Radiation-related cancer deaths are due to
these high doses in the population.
Uncertainty comes with low levels of
radiation.
Thousands of deaths have been predicted’
using assumptions about the potential effects of these low doses, leading to a
huge increase in the number of people exposed.
Which makes these assumptions about the
effects of radiation very important.
So, what is a low dose? It depends on how
you were exposed and for how long.
But remember, we all face radiation all
the time because there are so many sources of radioactivity in our world.
Everything is really a little radioactive.
Seawater is slightly radioactive, as are Brazil's nuts, bananas, and many
rocks.
Our own bodies emit a small amount of
radiation.
To put this context in perspective, this
"background radiation rate" gives you about 25 times the average
annual dose of chest x-rays. A high dose would be several hundred times that.
What effect does radiation have on the
body?
There are many types of radiation.
Visible light is a form of radiation, as
are radio waves.
The type of radiation we are talking about
removes electrons from the atoms in our body. The technical term is
"ionizing".
When an atom in a living cell has one of
three things ion - the cell dies, the cell repairs itself or it changes
incorrectly and can become cancerous.
Therefore, the important question is how
good our cells are in their repair after exposure to radiation.
This is a hotly debated topic.
To some extent, there are those who say
that our bodies are not very good at dealing with low levels of radiation. He
says UNSCEAR is optimistic and predicts more deaths than Chernobyl and other
radiation events.
USCER follows mainstream ideology. He considered
his starting point to be the fact that all life has evolved in a radioactive
world. From this point of view, our bodies are accustomed to dealing with low
levels of radiation and therefore the effects of low doses are minimal.
The other extremes are people who say that
low levels of radiation are good for you. There is a good deal of evidence
about the effects of low-level radiation.
But you may be wondering why we can't say
for sure which of these positions is correct when it comes to low doses of
radiation.
The answer is simple: the evidence is not
clear because the effects of small amounts of radiation are so small that they
are difficult to measure.
What does this tell us about the dangers
of low levels of radiation?
Well, for starters, that means there are
still risks.
As Nuclear Power, the UK's anti-nuclear
power pressure group No. 2, puts it, "There is no such thing as a
perfectly safe level of radiation: all exposure, no matter how small the risk -
even background radiation." ۔ "
Therefore, the question is how the risks
of low radiation compare with other hazards.
Let's start with the final report on
Chernobyl's legacy, prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005. It
predicts that about 9,000 people will die from exposure to low levels of
radiation.
Remember, this is an estimate of deaths.
As we have seen, only 43 people died of cancer that could be directly linked’
to radiation exposure.
However, he is a terrible person but we
need to look at him in context. These potential deaths represent a small
fraction. About seven million people were exposed’ to radiation, according to
the WHO.
And remember how common cancer is. Half of
people in developed countries will develop cancer in their lifetime. A quarter
of us can expect to die from it.
The WHO says that of the 600,000 people
most affected by the disaster, the rise in radiation-related cancers will be
"difficult to observe" because many people will develop other
cancers.
So, when it comes to the seven million
people from Chernobyl, it should come as no surprise that he says there is no
disease that can be’ identified.
So what does this tell us about radiation?
This confirms what most radiation experts
say: exposure to low levels of radiation is not a major health risk.
Don't get me wrong, they are not saying
that these deaths are not important - of course, they are.
But we can expect another 1.75 million
similar cancer deaths among those affected by the disaster.
For example, the American Cancer Society
estimates that smoking causes 1 in 5 deaths in the United States, and we know
that things like poor diet, inactivity, obesity and alcohol can also cause
cancer. Can
What the WHO report confirms is that other
factors like these put us at the highest risk of cancer. Even those of us who
have had the misfortune fear that Chernobyl's radiation levels will drop.
What this means is that we should focus
our efforts on dealing with them, and perhaps be a little more concerned about
the potential effects of low levels of radiation from things like nuclear
accidents.
Other concerns about nuclear power
However, the fear of radiation is not just
about nuclear power - there are concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and waste disposal, not to mention the huge cost of building new
nuclear power plants and then dismantling them. ۔
But the thing is: if we were a little less
concerned about the dangers of low-level radiation, we might be able to take a
more balanced view of nuclear power.
Evidence of coal-fired uranium and thorium
makes coal-fired power plants emit more radiation into the atmosphere than
regular nuclear power plants.
And, since we're talking about thinking
about the right things, don't forget the environment.
A more balanced view of the dangers of
radiation can help all those restless climate scientists I mentioned at the
beginning of this piece to get a little easier sleep in their beds at night.
0 Comments