Analyzing the Effect of Nuclear Power on Health
Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima. These tragic nuclear accidents are often referenced as a cautionary reminder of the dangers associated with the nuclear power industry. Yet, nuclear power continues to supply a significant portion (17%) of the world’s energy (Rashad, 2000). What are the benefits and risks of nuclear power compared to other energy sources? How does nuclear power affect our health? Could another nuclear accident occur in our lifetime?
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power:
Although the nuclear power industry is often viewed negatively as a result of high-profile nuclear accidents, the impact of nuclear power is multifaceted. There are clear risks, as well as benefits, associated with nuclear power.
Of primary concern is the production of radioactive waste as a result of nuclear power. Radioactive waste has the potential to be harmful to humans and the environment (Rinkesh, 2016). Nuclear power produces low and high-level radioactive waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) strictly regulates the disposal of both types of radioactive waste. Radiation limits set by the NRC are 1milliSievert per person per year (Ramana, 2009). To put this number in context, exposure to 1 milliSievert of radiation per year has been found to increase your risk of cancer by just 0.005% (Ramana, 2009). Additional research supports these statistics, showing that residents living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant are exposed to 0.01 millirem of radiation per year (.01 millirem is equivalent to .0001 milliSievert). A 0.01 millirem dose of radiation is unlikely to cause harm. In fact, the average person in the U.S. is exposed to 300 millirem of radiation per year just from natural radiation sources (NRC, 2012). According to the NRC, nuclear power plant operations “account for less than one-hundredth of a percent of the average American’s total radiation exposure” (NRC, 2012). Therefore, contrary to popular opinion, daily operations of nuclear power plants do not produce levels of radiation dangerous to human health.
Another important consideration is the environmental impact of nuclear power. Fortunately, nuclear power plants do not produce high levels of toxic emissions (EIA, 2017). In fact, research shows that CO2 emissions from a nuclear plant are “two orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled power plants” (Rashad, 2000). Therefore, they are typically regarded as a source of “clean” energy. However, the issue is not that simple. While the day-to-day operations of a nuclear power plant may be clean, the process of mining uranium and transporting uranium can have negative impacts on the environment (Rinkesh, 2016). Additionally, mining for uranium and building power plants require a lot of energy, which subsequently requires the burning of fossil fuels (EIA, 2017). So, while nuclear energy is typically regarded as “clean”, the full cycle of nuclear power production from the procurement of uranium to the production of energy must be taken into consideration.
Compared to other sources of power, nuclear has multiple distinct advantages beyond the fact that it does not produce greenhouse gases. First, nuclear power is a great source of inexpensive electricity. Nuclear plants have relatively low operating costs and do not rely on fossil fuels — meaning the cost of nuclear power does not fluctuate with gas and oil prices (Rinkesh, 2016). Additionally, nuclear power has greater reliability than certain sources of renewable power like solar or wind, since nuclear does not rely on specific climatic conditions (Rinkesh, 2017). There are a few other notable benefits: nuclear power plants have the ability to desalinate large quantities of seawater to produce freshwater; nuclear reactors produce cobalt-60, which has many medical uses, such as treating cancer; and nuclear reactors can be used to manufacture hydrogen (Cuttler, 2008).
To better understand the potential benefits and consequences of nuclear power, I interviewed John S.*, a fire protection engineer with over 35 years of experience designing risk-management systems and protocol for nuclear power plants. I have included a transcription of our discussion below:
Are nuclear power plants typically built in certain geographic areas?
J: They have to be located near a water source: rivers, lakes, or the ocean.
What safety precautions must someone working in a nuclear power plant take during daily work?
J: It depends on where you go in the plant. Only certain areas have radiation. The level of radiation also varies depending on location. At a minimum you have to wear a dosimeter to monitor your radiation exposure. Other areas you have to wear protective clothing and a mask. Before going into a plant, you have to go through training and pass a test regarding an emergency radiation situation. Each time you enter a plant, they check to make sure your training is current, and they also check your level of radiation exposure from prior work.
Can you explain how is radioactive waste disposed?
J: It is placed in dry-cast storage at the power plant. It’s basically stored in a big concrete canister reinforced with steel. These containers are designed to withstand many things: earthquake, airplane crash, bomb, fire, etc. The reason it stays at the plant is because the government never opened the planned nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The disposal of nuclear waste is highly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). By highly regulated, I mean that the NRC actually comes in to plants and verifies that the plants are in strict accordance with the requirements. The level of oversight is very high.
In your professional opinion, how high is the risk of a nuclear accident in the U.S.?
J: It is extremely low, in the order of magnitude of 10–6. The potential consequence of an accident is high. There are requirements that all nuclear power plants have to determine their probability of a failure, and that is where I come in. Each risk has specific criteria and standards that must be met to minimize the risk — the higher the risk, the stricter the criteria. The minimum (most relaxed) criteria stipulate that after all measures are implemented, the possible rate of failure is .000001%. For higher risks like fire or tsunami, the risk of failure must be even smaller. So, my job is to design systems to meet these very specific standards.
How high is the risk of nuclear accident in other areas, like in Europe or Asia?
J: It’s hard to say, I would say it’s slightly more likely, just because the regulations are not as strict, or are just different, in some countries. France has similar restrictions to the U.S. South Korea bases their regulations on ours. Then, you have some other nations that are not as strict. For example, our regulations have consistently improved over time, working to reduce risk. On the other hand, at the time of the Fukushima melt down, Japan had not updated their regulations since the 1960s. However, Japan did update their standards — especially accounting for tsunami and flood — after Fukushima.
What can cause a nuclear accident?
J: Earthquake, fire, there are a lot of risks. Those are two of the highest, but there are many risks. Nuclear power plants are analyzed and protected for every risk you could think of — even including a large aircraft crashing into the building.
What do you think is the public’s biggest misconception regarding nuclear power?
J: The biggest misconception is that people think nuclear power plants are not as safe as they really are.
Is the U.S. building any new nuclear power plants?
J: Yes! They are designed to have more passive systems than the old plants — they call it inherently safe. This doesn’t mean it is 100% safe, but it’s a safer design because it is more passive.
Can you explain passive systems?
J: With passive systems, no manual activities take place, and no automatic systems have to operate. The passive system is always in place and “on”. Think of it this way: a fire wall is passive, it stops the fire from spreading, whereas a sprinkler has to be activated for the system to work.
Can you explain why some nuclear plants are being shut down?
J: Every nuclear plant has a license that allows it to run for a certain length of time — usually 40 years. You can have the lifespan extended, but you have to have the extension approved by the NRC. When you apply for an extension, you have to make improvements to the plant and replace systems. That’s a huge and expensive process. So, after 40 years, you either extend it or shut it down.
What happens to all the radioactive waste inside when you shut a plant down?
J: When you shut a plant down, the first thing they do is kept the waste in the “spent fuel pool,” you have to then build the dry-cast containers. Once it’s built, they move fuel rods into those dry casts, empty the pools, and take all the systems down. Eventually, the site will become a green field. This takes a long time though — at least 10 years. But, you see plenty of shut down plants like Dresden in IL, where the structure of one of the generators is still standing even though it hasn’t been operational in years.
*Name changed to protect source anonymity
The Impact of Nuclear Power on Health:
A major disadvantage of nuclear power is the production of radioactive waste. Exposure to radiation is the primary mechanism by which nuclear power causes a negative effect on health. The main clinical concerns of exposure to radiation are acute radiation syndrome and an increased risk of developing cancer. An individual’s risk of becoming ill after exposure to radiation depends on many factors, such as: the specific isotopes released, the quantity of isotopes released, the person’s age, the duration of exposure to radiation, and the method (internal or external) of exposure (Accidents, 2011).
Acute radiation syndrome, as it was studied after the Chernobyl accident, is potentially fatal. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) may occur when an individual is exposed to more than 1 Gy of radiation (Christodouleas, 2011). ARS produces gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, as well as skin symptoms such as rashes, itching, burning, or blisters (Emergency, 2014). ARS can become fatal if it destroys an individual’s bone marrow (Emergency, 2014). However, it is important to know that acute radiation syndrome has not been observed in the general population after nuclear accidents. During the Chernobyl accident, 134 individuals were diagnosed with ARS. However, all of these individuals were power plant workers and emergency responders who were inside the plant immediately after the accident. At Three Mile Island, there were no reported cases of ARS (Christodouleas, 2011).
Radiation may also impact the genes of children exposed to radiation in utero (NRC, 2012). Fetuses in the 2nd-18th week of development are the most susceptible to the effects of radiation, which may cause fetal miscarriage, deformities, and abnormal brain function. After 18 weeks, cells of the fetus divide less rapidly, and the fetus’ risk of complications declines (Emergency, 2014).
Residents living near power plants are more likely to be affected by an increased risk of cancer than acute radiation syndrome. Radiation is a known carcinogen, as it has the ability to alter human DNA. However, the likelihood of developing cancer after a nuclear accident is relatively low. Studies after Chernobyl failed to find elevated risks of leukemia and non-thyroid cancer in exposed populations (Christodouleas, 2011). An interesting case study of the Fukushima accident by Burton Richter, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, analyzed the number of deaths caused by four factors: the deaths resulting from the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima meltdown, deaths due to acute radiation exposure, potential deaths due to an elevated risk of cancer, and deaths due to the use of fossil fuels. Richter found that the number of deaths caused by direct exposure to radiation and potential cancers caused by radiation were relatively small — 130 — compared to the 20,000 deaths caused by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Richter also found that, “for each terawatt hour (TW-h) of electrical output, the use of coal causes the loss of 138 years of life; the comparable number for gas is 42 years; and for nuclear power, 30 years, including losses attributed to the Fukushima accident” (Normile, 2012). Richter eventually concluded that even when accounting for the deaths and potential cancers caused by the Fukushima accident, nuclear energy is better for human health than fossil fuels.
Moving Forward:
While normal nuclear power operations do not pose a radiation threat to the public, the risk (however small) of a nuclear accident will persist as long as nuclear energy is utilized. It is imperative to the health of residents living near power plants that these communities have a detailed, continually updated and tested plan in the event of a nuclear accident. This plan should go beyond the current emergency plan of “get inside, stay inside, stay tuned” (Emergency, 2014).
Each nuclear power plant must develop a highly specific plan, based on their local population and geographic conditions. For example, a team at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California created a hypothetical model predicting what damage might occur if an accident similar to Fukushima occurred at their own plant. They found that even though a smaller population would be affected than what was observed in Fukushima, the event could be more deadly due to the meteorological conditions in the area (Normile, 2012). It is important for every nuclear plant in the U.S. to analyze these potential consequences, in order to derive plans that combat these specific differences. A “one-size fits all” emergency response plan could actually increase the number of deaths and medical complications.
Additionally, it is imperative that a quick, wide-reaching, and transparent communication system is put in place to notify residents of a nuclear accident. It is also important that residents living near power plants are educated in what action to take in case of an accident. One suggestion would be to teach children in schools simple measures that can be taken, like removing outer layers of clothing and showering after external exposure to radiation.
An improvement to current protocol may require training local physicians and emergency responders how to safely treat patients exposed to radiation, as this area of medicine is not commonly practiced. There is also evidence from public health research that suggests that residents living near a nuclear power plant can take potassium iodide within a few hours of exposure to radiation, as the potassium iodide inhibits the uptake of Iodine-131 by the thyroid (Christodouleas, 2011). Iodine accumulation in the thyroid can lead to the rapid division of cells — and thus cancer — since the thyroid cannot detect the difference between Iodine-131 due to radiation exposure from naturally occurring iodine levels (Accidents, 2011). By ensuring that emergency responders have adequate access to potassium iodide, the risk of developing cancer or illness from radiation exposure could be dramatically decreased.
In conclusion, if carefully thought out emergency protocol is created and implemented by communities near nuclear power plants, the health risks of a nuclear accident can be minimized, while the benefits of nuclear power can be maximized.
Sources:
Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants and Cancer Risk. (2011, April 19). Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet
Christodouleas, J. P., Forrest, R. D., Ainsley, C. G., Tochner, Z., Hahn, S. M., & Glatstein, E. (2011). Short-Term and Long-Term Health Risks of Nuclear-Power-Plant Accidents. New England Journal of Medicine,364(24), 2334–2341. doi:10.1056/nejmra1103676
Cuttler, J. M., & Pollycove, M. (2008, November 10). Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664640/
EIA. (2017, January 10). Nuclear Power and the Environment. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_environment
Emergency Preparedness and Response. (2014, October 30). Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/emergencyfaq.asp
Normile, D. (2012, July 18). Is Nuclear Power Good for You? Retrieved April 05, 2018, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/07/nuclear-power-good-you
NRC. (2012, April). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Radiation Protection. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html
Ramana, M. V. (2009). Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies. Annual Reviews,34, 127–152. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1146/annurev.environ.033108.092057.
Rashad, S. M., & Hammad, F. H. (2000). Nuclear power and the environment: Comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems. Applied Energy,65(1–4), 211–229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00069-0
Rinkesh. (2016, December 25). Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy.php
