Showing posts with label Chernobyl. Show all posts

Friday, 14 October 2016

More Nuclear Disasters Likely

Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say

The biggest-ever statistical analysis of historical accidents suggests that nuclear power is an underappreciated extreme risk and that major changes will be needed to prevent future disasters.

A team of risk experts who have carried out the biggest-ever analysis of nuclear accidents warn that the next disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima may happen much sooner than the public realizes.

Researchers at the University of Sussex, in England, and ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, have analysed more than 200 nuclear accidents, and -- estimating and controlling for effects of industry responses to previous disasters -- provide a grim assessment of the risk of nuclear power.

Their worrying conclusion is that, while nuclear accidents have substantially decreased in frequency, this has been accomplished by the suppression of moderate-to-large events. They estimate that Fukushima- and Chernobyl-scale disasters are still more likely than not once or twice per century, and that accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years.

As Dr Spencer Wheatley, the lead author, explains: "We have found that the risk level for nuclear power is extremely high.

"Although we were able to detect the positive impact of the industry responses to accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, these did not sufficiently remove the possibility of extreme disasters such as Fukushima. To remove such a possibility would likely require enormous changes to the current fleet of reactors, which is predominantly second-generation technology."

The studies, published in two papers in the journals Energy Research & Social Scienceand Risk Analysis, put fresh pressure on the nuclear industry to be more transparent with data on incidents.

"Flawed and woefully incomplete" public data from the nuclear industry is leading to an over-confident attitude to risk, the study warns. The research team points to the fact that their own independent analysis contains three times as much data as that provided publicly by the industry itself. This is probably because the International Atomic Energy Agency, which compiles the reports, has a dual role of regulating the sector and promoting it.

The research team for this new study gathered their data from reports, academic papers, press releases, public documents and newspaper articles. The result is a dataset that is unprecedented -- being twice the size of the next largest independent analysis. Further, the authors emphasize that the dataset is an important resource that needs to be continually developed and shared with the public.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, who co-authored the studies, says: "Our results are sobering. They suggest that the standard methodology used by the International Atomic Energy Agency to predict accidents and incidents -- particularly when focusing on consequences of extreme events -- is problematic.

"The next nuclear accident may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

The team also call for a fundamental rethink of how accidents are rated, arguing that the current method (the discrete seven-point INES scale) is highly imprecise, poorly defined, and often inconsistent.

In their new analysis, the research team provides a cost in US dollars for each incident, taking into account factors such as destruction of property, the cost of emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, fines, and insurance claims. And for each death, they added a cost of $6 million, which is the figure used by the US government to calculate the value of a human life.

That new analysis showed that the Fukushima accident in 2011 and the Chernobyl accident in 1986 cost a combined $425 billion -- five times the sum of all the other events put together.

However, these two extremes are rated 7 -- the maximum severity level -- on the INES scale. Fukushima alone would need a score of between 10 and 11 to represent the true magnitude of consequences.

Further, the authors emphasize that such frequency-severity statistical analysis of holistic consequences should be used as a complementary tool to the industry standard Probabilistic Safety Assessment, especially when aggregate consequences are of interest.

Professor Sovacool adds: "The results suggest that catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are not relics of the past.

"Even if we introduce new nuclear technology, as long as older facilities remain operational -- likely, given recent trends to extend permits and relicense existing reactors -- their risks, and the aggregate risk of operating the global nuclear fleet, remain."

Finally, the authors emphasize that this work is not comparative in nature, i.e. it does not quantify the risks of other energy sources. It provides a risk assessment for nuclear power alone, thus informing a single criterion, for a single power source, in the selection of a portfolio of multiple power sources, where many criteria must be considered.

Fellow co-author Professor Didier Sornette stresses: "While our studies seem damning of the nuclear industry, other considerations and potential for improvement may actually make nuclear energy attractive in the future."

The 15 most costly nuclear events analysed by the team are:

1. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) -- $259 billion

2. Fukushima, Japan (2011) -- $166 billion

3. Tsuruga, Japan (1995) -- $15.5 billion

4. TMI, Pennsylvania, USA (1979) -- $11 billion

5. Beloyarsk, USSR (1977) -- $3.5 billion

6. Sellafield, UK (1969) -- $2.5 billion

7. Athens, Alabama, USA (1985) -- $2.1 billion

8. Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (1977) -- $2 billion

9. Sellafield, UK (1968) -- $1.9 billion

10. Sellafield, UK (1971) -- $1.3 billion

11. Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA (1986) -- $1.2 billion

12. Chapelcross, UK (1967) -- $1.1 billion

13. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1982) -- $1.1 billion

14. Pickering, Canada (1983) -- $1 billion

15. Sellafield, UK (1973) -- $1 billion

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Sussex. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal References:

Spencer Wheatley, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Didier Sornette. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016; 15: 96 DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.026
Spencer Wheatley, Benjamin Sovacool, Didier Sornette. Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents. Risk Analysis, 2016; DOI: 10.1111/risa.12587

Cite This Page:

Severe nuclear reactor accidents likely every 10 to 20 years, European study suggests

Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents. Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.

Global risk of radioactive contamination. The map shows the annual probability in percent of radioactive contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. In Western Europe the risk is around two percent per year.

Credit: Daniel Kunkel, MPI for Chemistry, 2011

Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents.

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.

The reactor accident in Fukushima has fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought, a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned.

To determine the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown, the researchers applied a simple calculation. They divided the operating hours of all civilian nuclear reactors in the world, from the commissioning of the first up to the present, by the number of reactor meltdowns that have actually occurred. The total number of operating hours is 14,500 years, the number of reactor meltdowns comes to four -- one in Chernobyl and three in Fukushima. This translates into one major accident, being defined according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), every 3,625 years. Even if this result is conservatively rounded to one major accident every 5,000 reactor years, the risk is 200 times higher than the estimate for catastrophic, non-contained core meltdowns made by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1990. The Mainz researchers did not distinguish ages and types of reactors, or whether they are located in regions of enhanced risks, for example by earthquakes. After all, nobody had anticipated the reactor catastrophe in Japan.

25 percent of the radioactive particles are transported further than 2,000 kilometres

Subsequently, the researchers determined the geographic distribution of radioactive gases and particles around a possible accident site using a computer model that describes Earth's atmosphere. The model calculates meteorological conditions and flows, and also accounts for chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The model can compute the global distribution of trace gases, for example, and can also simulate the spreading of radioactive gases and particles. To approximate the radioactive contamination, the researchers calculated how the particles of radioactive caesium-137 (¹³⁷Cs) disperse in the atmosphere, where they deposit on Earth's surface and in what quantities. The ¹³⁷Cs isotope is a product of the nuclear fission of uranium. It has a half-life of 30 years and was one of the key elements in the radioactive contamination following the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of the ¹³⁷Cs particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident site. Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres, and around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national borders.

The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an area with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as contaminated.

The team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind direction.

If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million people on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in East Asia this would be 14 to 21 million people.

"Germany's exit from the nuclear energy program will reduce the national risk of radioactive contamination. However, an even stronger reduction would result if Germany's neighbours were to switch off their reactors," says Jos Lelieveld. "Not only do we need an in-depth and public analysis of the actual risks of nuclear accidents. In light of our findings I believe an internationally coordinated phasing out of nuclear energy should also be considered ," adds the atmospheric chemist.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

J. Lelieveld, D. Kunkel, M. G. Lawrence. Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2012; 12 (9): 4245 DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012

Cite This Page:

From Science Daily @ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160919113044.htm and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm?trendmd-shared=0

For more information about nuclear power see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear%20power

- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

Do you LIKE this uniquely informative site?

A genuinely incapacitated invalid maintains, writes, edits, researches, illustrates, moderates and publishes this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest.

Now that most people use ad blockers and view these posts on phones and other mobile devices, sites like this earn an ever shrinking pittance from advertising sponsorship.

This site needs your help.

Like what you see? Please give anything you can -

Contribute any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

(You can use a card securely if you don’t use Paypal)

Please click below -

And it costs nothing to share this post on Social Media!

Dare to care and share - YOU are our only advertisement!

Xtra Image by R. Ayana –https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8109/8530578388_7dd18962e3_k.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ the top left of http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/playlists

New Illuminati’s OWN Youtube Videos -

https://www.youtube.com/user/new1lluminati/videos

New Illuminati on Google+ @ For New Illuminati posts - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RamAyana0/posts

and see https://plus.google.com/115562482213600937809/posts

and google.com/+newilluminati-channel

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

New Illuminati on Google Follow - http://www.google.com/friendconnect/settings/edit?smpl=true&st=e%3DAOG8GaCFDeBRZ1yDY2DjCaq61tFDiwO07s%252Fwv3x8%252B%252FJgZJTLx5igbMomJIu3796Ja6n05WaS8qnJ0DLyeGk1q49tLD8m%252FhV1K%252Bq%252BQIOGOwLeWznnm5IGhzjfWzVnq5I4UJr3fw8yk%252B8W2OqwlCbL7BNsW32uouSc79Br%252BkOZQ1Fpzg6J3KMIZkzmg0%252FcPHsWUPqZv845VKS31S%252FbCm8NpINhlK1kDxUdRmcCkT37dIc4RB6PNurjCcd2%252BVkNBveCm4kAgeb8A3Q5hNj6%252FHplvQxKFI%252BW1TYBJVYqHHTKsnBPGcL6wlZdxTUwtfxWU2ZvANJQ%252F%252FUrolBwP7ovb92SZqSWMFJRnN2rsQ%253D%253D%26c%3Dpeoplesense

New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further!

This site is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Saturday, 10 September 2016

Cannabis Can Decontaminate the Planet

Hemp and the Decontamination of Radioactive Soil

by Seshata

Hemp science is now advancing in leaps and bounds compared to the stagnation of the previous few decades. One significant area of research that is currently receiving particular attention is phytoremediation, or decontamination of soil—although the discovery that hemp leaches contaminants from soil has been known for some time.

The Chernobyl phytoremediation project

For over a decade, industrial hemp growing in the environs of the abandoned Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine has been helping to reduce soil toxicity. Now, the Japanese are considering following the same course in order to rectify the environmental damage caused by the Fukushima meltdown—however, due to the Cannabis Control Law forced into Japanese law by the occupying U.S. powers in 1948, hemp may only be grown under license—which are highly restricted and difficult to obtain.

In 1989, just three years after the initial explosion, the Soviet administration of the time requested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assess the environmental situation. In the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl, high concentrations of various toxic metals including iodine, cesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium were found in the soil, as well as in plants and animals themselves.

Hemp has been found to absorb heavy metals from soil at a very high rate

Which Plants are Useful in Phytoremediation?

In response, it was decided that a concerted effort to reduce soil contamination through the use of beneficial plants would be undertaken. This process, known as phytoremediation, began immediately, and used various plants to take up specific contaminants—two brassica varieties to remove chromium, lead, copper and nickel, maize to take up lead (various researchers have demonstrated the remarkable lead-uptake capability of this important crop), and more recently, sunflower and hemp.

Sunflower plantings began in 1996 subsequent to the development of a variety that promised hitherto unheard-of efficiency of decontamination; hemp plantings soon followed, in 1998. Slavik Dushenkov, a research scientist with Phytotech, one of the organisations behind the hemp plantings, stated that “hemp is proving to be one of the best phyto-remediative plants we have been able to find”.

As well as in the Ukraine, much rural land in neighbouring Belarus was affected by the explosion, and authorities there are also pursuing the use of hemp as a decontaminant. The harvest produced will be turned into ethanol, as increased production of biofuel is a key target for increasing the overall economic and environmental health of the region.

The Chernobyl exclusion zone, site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, is slowly being returned to health as plants and animals begin to reclaim the land

Differences in Metal Uptake From Soil

In 2012, a Romanian study i nvestigate d the nutritional safety of hemp seed produced from plants grown in soils rich in calcium, magnesium, potassium and iron. The study determined that five distinct Romanian hemp strains developed different nutritional profiles according to uptake of the various metals in the soil. For example, the Zenit strain exhibited highest rates of calcium uptake, while the Armanca absorbed least calcium; the Diana, Denise and Silvana strains absorbed magnesium at the highest rates, and the Zenit variety showed the highest concentrations of iron.

Despite the differences, the seeds and oil of all five strains exhibited high levels of magnesium, calcium, iron, manganese, zinc and potassium, all highly beneficial dietary metals. However, all varieties also tested above the safe legal limit for cadmium, a toxic heavy metal that may cause various health complications—despite the soil being within the safe limit for cadmium concentration. The Armanca and Silvana strains showed particularly high cadmium levels.

Hemp and Cadmium Absorption

Excessive consumption of foodstuffs high in cadmium can lead to joint and bone deformities, respiratory illness, anaemia, and kidney failure. In areas where cadmium is present in the soil, in order to be safe for human or animal consumption, hemp varieties should be selected on the basis of poor cadmium uptake.

According to a study into Chinese hemp strains conducted in 2011, many hemp strains have the ability to absorb and accumulate even large quantities of cadmium in soil without detriment to the plant itself. While this does throw up various implications for selection of sites for cultivation of food-safe hemp, it also indicates that cadmium-contaminated sites will particularly benefit from phytoremediation schemes that make primary or exclusive use of hemp. Furthermore, even if hemp used to decontaminate soil is unsafe for consumption, it can still be used in a number of industrial applications, such as for biofuel.

As vegetation slowly reclaims formerly inhabited areas, adding species known to be effective extractors of soil-based heavy metals can aid in ecosystem rejuvenation

Hemp is Mostly Unaffected by Heavy Metals in Soil

Hemp’s resilience to contaminants in soil is well-documented. Even as early as 1975, a study published in the Agronomy Journal described how soil characteristics influenced elemental uptake and could even affect final cannabinoid profile in psychoactive strains. To illustrate this, fifteen sites with varying soil profiles were planted with the same strain of Afghan cannabis, and their harvests tested for metal content. Researchers concluded that differences could be used to determine geographic origin of cannabis through foliar analysis.

In 1995, the Polish Institute of Natural Fibres released a study demonstrating that tested varieties were able to withstand high levels of heavy metals in soil without impacting plant growth, yield or fibre quality. However, little research has been done into the safety of using fibres in clothing or other forms of industry, and this issue must be investigated fully in order to establish the possible uses for hemp grown in such conditions.

As a proven, valuable tool in the fight to repair human-inflicted damage to our soils and ecosystems, hemp could potentially benefit hundreds of thousands of sites across the globe—it is estimated that in the USA alone there are 30,000 sites requiring remediation. As is so often the case, US restrictions on hemp cultivation preclude any large-scale operations from being implemented, and the contaminated sites are largely left unremediated, through lack of both funding and interest on the part of the government.

From Sensi Seeds @ https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/hemp-decontamination-radioactive-soil/

Hemp is Being Used to Decontaminate Europe's Largest Steel Plant Site

Are we ready to fully legalize hemp?

By Johnny Green

Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on earth. I once heard a statistic that hemp can be used to make up to 25,000 different things. I didn't personally see the list, so I don't know the accuracy of that claim, but I think it's safe to say that hemp is amazing.

The hemp plant can be used to make hempcrete, which is a substance that can be used to build houses and other structures. Hemp can be used to make food, paper, and fiber. Hemp has even been used to make car parts.

Hemp used as a decontaminate

Hemp is very efficient at pulling heavy metals from soil. It's what helps it grow so hearty and so quickly. Trees take decades to harvest, whereas hemp only takes months.

Because of hemp's ability to pull metals from the soil, it can be used very effectively to clean up areas that are contaminated. One town in Italy (Taranto) is using hemp to clean up a contaminated area that has housed Europe's largest steel plant for a long time.

The steel plant, which opened in 1965, has ravaged the local ecosystem, pumping toxic levels of contaminants into the ground. It is estimated that from 2005-2012 alone, upwards of 11,000 local residents died as a result of health issues directly related to the steel plant.

“A long time ago, a choice was made to sacrifice this part of Italy, jeopardizing the health of the citizens of Taranto and its community and the biodiversity of the two seas,” said politician Domenico Finiguerra, according to Slate. “It was decided to sacrifice this land in the name of Italy’s economic future, supplying its industry with all the steel it needed.”

Hemp has been cultivated near the site of the steel plant for the last five years, with production increasing from 3 hectares to 300. About 100 farmers grow hemp, with the harvest being sold to manufacturers to be made into various products.

Hemp works, so why isn't its use more widespread?

Taranto, Italy is not the first time that hemp has been used to decontaminate the soil. For many centuries hemp was used as a rotation crop because it essentially flushed out the soil so it could be better conditioned for other crops.

Hemp was planted at the site of the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, along with various other plants such as sunflower plants. Hemp has consistently proven to be the best plant at decontaminating the soil it is planted in because of hemp's tremendous uptake ability.

Unfortunately, the reason why hemp isn't used more often is entirely for political reasons. It's certainly not for scientific reasons. Hemp is non-toxic. According to an estimate from the movie Hempsters, a person would have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole in order to feel euphoria from hemp. To overdose on it is humanly impossible.

The fact of the matter is that opponents have fought hemp legalization at all costs because of the plant's versatility, and the likely dramatic affect reform would have on many industries. It's not coincidence that many of the same people that have historically opposed hemp also come from industries that hemp reform would directly affect.

It's a shame too, because science is clearly on the side of hemp reform. I don't know that I would go as far as some people and claim that hemp will save the world, but I do feel confident in saying that hemp could go a long ways in helping improve the world in many ways.

From Green Flower @ https://www.learngreenflower.com/articles/172/hemp-used-decontaminate-europe-largest-steel-plant-site

For more information about hemp see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/hemp