Monday 27 December 2021

Notes from “The. Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes

P1  “New nuclear powers are a threat, old nuclear powers keep the peace” as quoted by Anne Harrington de Santana who discerned that nuclear weapons have acquired the status of fetish objects: “Just as access to wealth in the form of money determines an individual’s opportunities and place in a social hierarchy, access to power in the form of nuclear weapons determines a state’s opportunities and place in the international order.” 

The 1970’s/80’s were frightening times: The USSR was at war in Afghanistan and the US was widely referring to them as “the evil empire” and “the focus of evil in the modern world”. President Carter threatened to use nuclear weapons if the USSR continued its thrust to the Arabian Sea. The USSR was building nuclear bombs quickly in order to achieve parity with the USA and the US right wing was “howling for blood”. Ronald Reagan more than doubled military spending. NATO held a field exercise, Able Archer 83, that was designed as a run-up to nuclear war foolishly (and even had world leaders at it) on Russia’s doorstep, very nearly scaring the Soviets under an ailing Andropov into launching a nuclear first strike.

P2. ”I found it Harvard to believe that a species as clever and adaptable as ours would voluntarily destroy itself, even though it had voluntarily manufactured the means to do so.” “Why seventy thousand nuclear weapons between us when only a few were more than enough to destroy each other?” RR 

P3. Niels Bohr articulated that: though nuclear weapons are the property of individual nation-states, which claim the right to hold and to use them in defence of national sovereignty, in their indiscriminate destructiveness they are a common danger to all, like an epidemic disease, and like an epidemic disease they transcend national borders, disputes and ideologies.

Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, a time during which physicists were exploring, collaborating across borders, only one, Leo Szilard saw the possibility of a weapon of mass destruction. Physicists in Germany, Japan, Britain, France, USA, Russia, Denmark, Italy were all working on the structure and energy of atomic nuclei. Furthermore they were not only sharing information across boundaries, they were honourably given credit where it was due. 

P4 “Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, not always welcome.” RR

P5 The USSR and the United States prefer to sacrifice a portion of their national sovereignty - “prefer to forego the power to make total war - rather than be destroyed in their fury. Lesser wars continue, and will continue until the world community is sufficiently impressed with their destructive futility to forge new instruments of protection and new forms of citizenship. But world war at least has been revealed to be historical, not universal, a manifestation of destructive technologies of limited scale.” 

Until recently, natural violence in the form of bacteria and viruses were the human race’s worst enemies. The invention of public health, vaccines and antibiotics sent death to the side-lines at the same time that war began rapidly and pathologically to increase, reaching horrendous peaks in the twentieth century’s two world wars. Man-made death claimed not fewer than 200 million human lives before 1945 and an average of 1.5 million/year ever since in guerrilla conflict and conventional interstate wars. 

P6 “Nuclear weapons, the ultimate containers of man-made death, made the consequences of sovereign violence starkly obvious for the first time in human history. Since there was no sure defence against such weapons, they also made the consequences certain.” “Every great and deep difficulty bears within itself its own solution,” Niels Bohr 

In 2008, some of the scientists who modeled the original 1983 nuclear winter scenario investigated the likely result of a theoretical regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, a war they postulated to involve only 100 Hiroshima-scale nuclear weapons, yielding a total of only 1.5 megatons - no more than the yield of some single warheads in the US and Russian arsenals. They were shocked to discover that because such an exchange would inevitably be targeted on cities filled with combustible materials, the resulting firestorms would inject massive volumes of black smoke into the upper atmosphere which would spread around the world, cooling the earth long enough and sufficiently to produce worldwide agricultural collapse. Twenty million prompt deaths from blast, fire, and radiation. Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon projected, and another billion deaths in the months that followed from mass starvation - from a mere 1.5-megaton regional nuclear war. 

P7 From the 1996 Canberra Commission on the Eliination of Nuclear Weapons identified the “axiom of proliferation” “As long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will seek to acquire them.” Australian ambassador-at-large for nuclear disarmament, Richard Butler, said “The basic reason for this assertion is that justice, which most human beings interpret essentially as fairness, is demonstrably a concept of the deepest importance to people all over the world.” It is manifestly clear that attempts over the years of those who own nuclear weapons to assert their security justifying having those weapons while the security of others does not is an abject failure. 

P8 When Butler was with the UN commission in monitoring Iraq, Iraqis demanded that I explain why they should be hounded for their weapons of mass destruction when, just down the road, Israel was not, even though it was known to possess 200 nuclear weapons. I confess too that I flinch when I hear American, British, and French fulminations against weapons of mass destruction ignoring the fact that they are the proud owners of massive quantities of those weapons, unapologetically insisting that they are essential for their national security and will remains so.” “Human beings will not swallow such unfairness. This principle is as certain as the basic laws of physics itself.” “My attempts to have the Americans enter into discussions about double tankards have been an abject failure……I sometimes felt I was speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their inability to understand….that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem as are those of Iraq or of Iran or North Korea.” 

President Obama in his Prague speech in 2009 said “if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

The knowledge of how to make nuclear bombs will not disappear with nuclear disarmament but instead of having the ability to attack using these weapons within minutes or hours, much longer periods of time, significantly longer times, would be required. In the interim, we might have pause to negotiate our differences before destroying all of civilization. MD

LeoSzilard,aHungariantheoreticalphysicist,bornofJewishheritagebutraisedasaChristianhadasoulfulexpression.Hisgreatestambiton,moreprofoundeventhanhiscommitmenttoscientce,wassomehowtosavetheworld.HewasdeeplyaffectedbyH.G.Wells’tract,theOpenConspiracy-apubliccollusionofscience-mindedindustrialistsandfinancierstoestablishaworldrepublic.”WhenIwasyoung,Ihadtwogreatinterestsinlife;onewasphysicsandtheotherpolitics”Rhodessays,”Totheendofhislife,hemadedullmenuncomfortableandvainmenmad.

Wednesday 22 September 2021

Plutonium

 Plutonium

 

In 1952, the Periodic Table that covered our exam questions had plutonium, atomic number 94, on it. It also had americium, curium, berkelium and californium but all these were faint, made of dots, faded as though they were ghosts of elements rather than the elements themselves.

 

It was exciting to know that scientists were still “discovering” new elements. They described what they were doing as “discovering”; I had no idea that they were actually manufacturing them nor that they existed for mere seconds or milliseconds. To my eight-year-old mind, their “discovery” meant that they were part of the basic building blocks of the universe. I was now primed for more elements, for more atomic “discoveries”!

 

In fact, uranium is the last element natural to our environment; all elements with atomic numbers greater than 92 were or would be created, would be artificial, transient, and radioactive.  

 

Uranium was first isolated in 1789. A German chemist, Martin Klaproth, isolated it from pitchblende ore. He named it “uran” in honour of a recently discovered seventh planet from the sun, Uranus. 

 

Martin had no knowledge of nuclear physics; he did not know that uranium had an atomic number of 92 for the 92 protons in its nucleus and the 92 electrons flying around it. A hundred and fifty years later when Manhattan project scientists created an element with 93 protons in its nucleus, they named it “neptunium” (Np) after the eighth planet from the sun. It was natural for them to name element number 94 “plutonium” after then-ninth-planet Pluto[1].

 

Planet Pluto itself was named for the god of the underworld, and of the afterlife. Pluto was also the god of wealth because gold and silver came from the ground. It was an apt name for a long-lived and entirely manufactured element that would become the sought-after explosive for atomic bombs.

 

Both neptunium and plutonium[i] were formed by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons in a cyclotron. 

 

Scientists knew that uranium-235 was fissile bomb-making material; its disadvantage for this purpose was that nearly 50 kg were required to make an explosive device. Furthermore, natural uranium was mostly U238. Being less than 5% of natural uranium, it required time-consuming processes to be enriched to a bomb-making concentration greater than 90%. Scientists didn’t feel that they had “lots of time”. They also knew that a heavier element was theoretically possible.

 

Element 93, neptunium, was not fissile, but it spontaneously and quickly (two days half-life) decayed by beta emission into element 94, plutonium, which proved to be fissile. Only eleven kilograms, a 4-inch diameter sphere of plutonium-239 would be needed to make a bomb. 

 

The race was on to isolate it, characterize it and weaponize it. Scientists at Los Almos, New Mexico, worked with quantities so small that they could not see them. They could only trace them by following their radioactivity. The history of the “radium girls” was in their minds so they watched contamination rigorously. They worked in a highly ventilated and filtered atmosphere, submitted to “nose wipes” that were checked for radioactivity, and tried to recover every spilled atom of plutonium. 

 

It is clear from the records kept by Dr. Hempelmann, the medical doctor in charge of the health team, that measures to protect the staff were not taken for simple humanitarian reasons – he, Oppenheimer and another physician, Stafford Warren, were concerned about lawsuits. Studies with plutonium in rats indicated that the element was a “bone-seeker” like radium and also that it accumulated in the liver. Compared to radium, it was excreted much more slowly which meant that it stayed in the body longer. Having a longer biological half-life meant greater exposure to radioactivity.

 

One of their other early discoveries was the difficulty in keeping it contained. They couldn’t even see the element, but it got onto their shirt cuffs, soles of shoes, laboratory doorknobs and their own faces. 

 

On August 1, 1944, a chemist, Don Mastick, had an accident that illustrates the concern that the laboratory had about their plutonium samples.

 

Don’s equipment was miniature – his test tubes were the size of darning needles. He was working with microscopic quantities when he opened a tiny vial containing 10 mg of plutonium[2] dissolved in acid. Because gas had accumulated in the vial, it exploded onto the wall, his face and his clothing. He tasted the acid.

 

He immediately went to the medical clinic across the road. His face was washed and the water saved. His mouth was swished and the spittle saved. His stomach was pumped twice and the contents saved. In fact, as the only chemist working in isolation of plutonium, after these decontamination procedures, Don was given all the washings to return to the laboratory and retrieve the plutonium. All but 1 microgram (one thousandth of a milligram) was recovered. That one microgram in his body was enough to blow the ionization chamber off-scale for days after the accident with his breath and, thirty years later, still be detectable in his urine!

 

Plutonium is an unusual element. When pure plutonium is exposed to air it quickly forms hydrides and oxides and can expand massively to 70% more that its original volume. The flakes are pyrophoric meaning that they can spontaneously ignite. It reacted chemically in such different ways that it was easy to separate from its parent element, uranium-238.

 

John Gofman had isolated 1.2 milligrams of plutonium from 2 tons of uranium in a cyclotron in autumn, 1942. It took six weeks of neutron bombardment[3] and a further three weeks to chemically isolate it (at this time, every step had to be invented; they were just beginning to learn about its characteristics). In liquid form, the 1.2 mg had a volume equal to ¼ of a teaspoon.

 

Clearly, for bomb construction, they need a faster process. Enrico Fermi created a primitive nuclear reactor in Chicago, the Chicago Pile 1, to demonstrate that a sustained reaction could be obtained. An Oak Ridge reactor was in construction and would be functioning by November 1943 to deliver plutonium to Los Almos the following year.  

 

By this time, the uranium bomb had been designed as a “gun-type” device. A half sphere of uranium was “shot” using a conventional explosive into another half-sphere to create a critical mass which would explode. Scientists needed to work on a different device because the desired plutonium isotope, Pu239, was contaminated with another isotope, Pu240, which just fizzles along and interfers with the explosive quality of Pu239. 

 

They came up with a different device, an implosion bomb that brought the bits of plutonium forcibly together by a circle of explosive charges. Once united, they reached criticality and would explode.

 

They weren’t entirely sure that it would work as planned and arranged to test it. The Trinity Test was secretive, allegedly done “where there were no people or animals”. In the highly secretive wartime atmosphere, General Groves’ pre-prepared press release lied about the detonation, seen and felt up to 100 miles away like this: “A remotely located ammunition magazine containing a considerable amount of high explosives and pyrotechnics exploded.” 

 

Thirty miles away farm animals and cattle lost the hair on their backs – it regrew white. The army purchased these animals and allegedly took them to Los Almos and Oak Ridge to follow their health. Some researchers claim that there may have been human fetal loss of up to 52% using state statistics. It was not, in fact, an unpopulated location and many of the rural people in the area consider themselves to be the first victims of nuclear weapons.

 

One thousand miles away, the Eastman Kodak officials reported furiously that their unexposed film had been contaminated by radioactive particles, presumably from Wabash River water. Any delusions about limited radioactive fallout were dashed from the first atomic bomb blast.

 

When the Manhattan project scientists were working with it, plutonium was code-named as “the Product”. Dogs, cats, rats and rabbits were injected, forced to breath plutonium-contaminated air or fed plutonium. Those that received the largest doses sickened and died. Pregnant animals aborted or eventually delivered small or deformed babies. Large numbers of lab animals were sacrificed in numerous studies. This was not enough to establish plutonium’s toxicity.

 

They wanted human subjects to test “the product”. They didn’t know how quickly people could excrete it, whether through urine or feces. They knew that radioactivity caused a decline in blood cells but they didn’t know how quickly it might happen with plutonium. They explained that human experiments “were needed to see how to apply the animal data to human problems”[ii].

 

At this point, the story of plutonium slips into the bizarre.

 

While they determined that the human subjects sought needed to be suffering from incurable diseases but have close to normal kidney function in order to study excretion of plutonium in urine and feces, their first victim was a "well developed...well nourished" "colored male"[iii] who had been involved in a motor-vehicle accident. He was employed as a construction worker from the Oak Ridge site of the Manhattan project.

 

It is very unclear why he was chosen because he was noted to have “somewhat diminished”[iv] kidney function. Perhaps he was only a victim of opportunity. His motor-vehicle accident occurred on the Oak Ridge site. 

 

Ebb Cade was 55 years old. He had multiple broken bones which left untreated for three weeks in order prepare for the experiment. The bones were surgically reduced five days after the plutonium was given an opportunity to “settle” in and on them. During the surgery, physicians were able to determine that plutonium did indeed go to bones. 

Their study was badly flawed because they failed to keep the pre-injection urine and feces separate from the post-injection products

 

When describing the experiment in a classified talk, perhaps in an attempt to assuage his guilt, one of the researchers described Ebb as “an elderly male whose age and general health was such that there is little or no possibility that the injection can have any effect on the normal course of his life”[v]. No mention was made of his employment or of his broken bones. No mention is made of his subsequent health until his death in 1953 from “ventricular fibrillation following heart failure”[vi] at the age of 63. No consent for the experiment was ever sought and no information was given by the researchers to his wife or family.

 

The next patient was Arthur Hubbard, a retired businessman with an aggressive squamous cell cancer. He received 6.5 micrograms of plutonium intravenously and his urine and stool samples were collected thereafter. Arthur’s cancer was well advanced so he fit their criteria.

 

The third patient was Albert Stevens, a fifty-eight-year-old house painter. He was presumed to have a limited lifespan with stomach cancer. He had normal kidney function, an “ideal candidate for the experiment”. He was injected with Pu238, a more radiotoxic isotope of plutonium but more readily measured than Pu239 with the instruments of the 1940’s.

 

Four days after the injection, with plutonium coursing throughout his body, Albert went to surgery for removal of his “carcinomatous mass”[vii]. When the pathologist could not find any evidence of cancer, the entire team was shocked. Albert lived for another 21 years; there seems to be no comment about his general health although he had received one of the largest test doses of plutonium.

 

Neither Arthur nor Albert nor their families were sought for permission nor were they ever told about the experimental nature of their injections. Arthur died shortly after the injection; Albert died of heart failure at age 79.[viii]

 

There were a total of eighteen victims of plutonium injections. They received poor follow-up, their initial health conditions were so varied that it was impossible to establish a baseline, and of course, none of them were informed or asked to sign releases. 

 

Lying, obfuscation and secrecy kept the experimenters connected and established the foundation for denial of health effects of ionizing radiation. This was true for both scientists and politicians who supported research and continuing development of nuclear bombs.

 

There have been and will continue to be many more victims of Trinity, Hiroshima[ix] and Nagasaki.

 

Minute traces of plutonium are now found in every human body on earth. More than 550 atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests have been carried out and some dozen or more major nuclear accidents have contaminated the globe. 

 

While scientists with the Manhattan Project were unable to establish the health effects of relatively small exposures to plutonium, they certainly knew the effects of large exposures through some of the criticality accidents in their research labs. 

 

A critical reaction is one that is self-sustaining, a reaction that only needs “moderating” to continue, a reaction where the numbers of neutrons produced effect the further release of the same numbers of neutrons. A nuclear power plant is said to go “critical” when it is “turned on” to create the heat necessary to boil water.

 

A “criticality accident” occurs when an accidental uncontrolled, unmoderated chain reaction occurs. According to Wikipedia, there have been sixty criticality accidents recorded since 1945[x]

 

In order to determine the exact amount of plutonium required to explode, scientists experimented by bringing pieces of plutonium into close proximity to one another. They also tried various means to increase the number of neutrons released from the plutonium core by using various elements as “reflectors”. The experiments were called “tickling the dragon’s tail”. 

 

On two well known occasions, scientists received fatal doses of radiation when their experiments went critical. Since both men were using the same plutonium core and running trials less than a year apart, that core gained the name, “the demon core”. It was later melted down for use in other bomb tests.

 

Both men, Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, received estimated radiation doses greater than 5 Sv. Both men received the best possible medical care, specialists flown to the site hospital from across the United States. Their families were also notified and flown to their bedside knowing that they would not live. Both died painful prolonged deaths, their bodies bloating and edematous as cell walls broke apart, their minds disordered, excruciating diarrhea as the linings of their guts became part of their feces. 

 

Harry’s accident occurred less than three weeks after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His agonizing death took 25 days. All the scientists and highest-ranking military men could not avoid knowing that some people would die this way when bombed in an atomic war.

 

Louis actually moved closer to the reaction, possibly to protect the other people in the room. He died nine days later.

 

We heard nothing about these experiments in 1952; the information was classified.

 

Later, in 1958, Cecil Kelley’s death was also classified. Cecil was a chemist, a technician working in a plutonium-separation laboratory. He received an estimated 36 Seiverts exposure when a plutonium acid bath that he was mixing went critical. Since exposure to 5 Sv was considered a universally fatal dose for humans, medical staff knew that Cecil would die and considered him an “experiment of opportunity”. Repeated blood samples, catherization of his bladder and even a bone marrow biopsy of his sternum were done without permission. Every moment of his life was recorded.

 

The blood samples taken six hours after the accident showed that he no longer had white blood cells; a bone marrow examination produced only acellular red watery substance. He had been knocked unconscious initially, had a very brief period of lucidity before he slipped into a coma and died 35 hours later. He was autopsied and more than eight pounds of body parts and tissues were removed from his body. His wife was not informed of the accident until after his death, nor was her permission sought for either the autopsy or removal of organs. His cause of death was recorded as “congestive heart failure”.

 

Plutonium, like its namesake, the god of the underworld, afterlife, and wealth, was powerful. Dangerous to handle, it grabbed the hearts and minds of countless brilliant people. Even as it continues to leak poisonously into the environment, more is constantly being created. Like heroin, it has become an addiction.

 

 



[1] Pluto was demoted from planetary status to “dwarf planet” in August 2006.

[2] Plutonium is very dense. Twenty mg of plutonium occupies 1 cubic mm.

 

[3] Deuteron was used for bombardment. It is the nucleus of a deuterium atom, one proton and one neutron.



[i] There is argument that plutonium may have been a primordial element because infinitesimal amounts have been found in nature. The counterargument is that they are the result of natural bombardment of uranium-238 by neutrons. Neptunium is entirely of human manufacture.

[ii] Plutonium files p89, from Russell & Nickson, p2 Distribution and Excretion of Plutonium

[iv] The Plutonium Files P83

[v] Ibid, p86

[vii] “Description of Operation” June 6, 1945, Stevens m.r. Quoted in Plutonium Files P92

[ix] “Little Boy”, the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, was a uranium-235 bomb. “Fat Man” on Nagasaki was a plutonium-239 bomb.

Saturday 28 August 2021

Ionizing Radiation and Health

Ionizing Radiation and Health

 

I’m going to start by being very frank with you. I think that the nuclear industry is deceptive at best and downright fraudulent in fact when it says that it is “safe” and “clean”, the two adjectives repeated in its advertising.

 

Nothing that produces waste which lasts more than a hundred thousand times longer than the original energy production can be said to be “clean”. 

 

That is not all. Mining produces surface tailings ponds that metamorphize into waste retention. The uranium must be transported thousands of kms, refined, and manufactured into fuel rods.

 

For most NPP, the fuel must also be concentrated (called being enriched) using a lot of electricity. None of the handling of the uranium ore or the manufacturing is completely clean so every location is subtly contaminated.

 

Branding “reprocessing” used fuel as “recycling? A lie. This uses highly corrosive acid to dissolve the old fuel thus creating a highly corrosive highly radioactive soup from which a 5% volume of plutonium and uranium-235 has been removed.

 

Meanwhile we are always being reassured that the amount of radioactivity that enters the environment from this dead-end technology is “safe” for human health.

 

What do we know?

 

From the discovery of x-rays and the discovery of radioactivity a year later, physicians and market forces were interacting with these new and highly exciting packets of energy, either as alpha and beta particles or as Gamma and x rays.

 

As quickly as four years later, the effects of focussing these forms of energy was known. Experimental physicists and physicians developed burns of their hands that did not heal, and eventually cancers.

 

The widespread use of radium in a softly glowing beverage came crashing to an end when a dentist identified it as the cause of cancers of the jaws of young women who painted watch dials.

 

In the early 1930’s, the International Radiolgical Standards Association built a monument to the lives of those that had died during the early years of experimenting with ionizing radiation in the health field. They estimated 300,000 deaths.

 

Still, heading into WWII and the Manhattan Project to build an atomic and hydrogen bombs, the United States and the USSR continued to use their own people as subjects in massive population experiments with radioactivity.

 

Even before WWII information sharing, the risks of exposure had been selectively applied to populations working with radiation. While radioactive exposure to skin was still considered to be safe as long as the skin recovered, warnings about long-term effects of handling substances of low radioactivity were known.

 

The Dene

 

In 1930, radium was discovered at on the Eastern shores of Great Bear Lake in NWT.

That same year Dene-Sahtu men were hired as “coolies” to transport the ore in burlap bags on their backs.

 

Canadian government publications warn of the serious health hazards associated with chronic exposure to small amounts of high-grade radioactive ores. The mine workers and ore carriers were not told.

 

One Department of Mines official wrote,” the ingestion of small amounts of radioactive dust or emanation (radon) over a long Period of time will cause a building up of radioactve material in the body, which eventually may have serious consequences. 

 

“Lung cancer, bone necrosis, and rapid anaemia are possible diseases due to the deposition of radioactive substance in the cell tissue or bone structure of the body.”

 

Dr. S. C. Lind, was recognized as one of the outstanding radioactivity chemists of America. He believed that “precautions against ore dust should be considered in view of the concentration of the Great Bear Lake Pitchblende and the recent information of the large numbers of miners of the Bohemian Mines (in Czechoslovakia).  (1932)

 

A 1991 federal aboriginal health survey found the Deline community reporting twice as much illness as any other Canadian indigenous community.

 

 

WWII

 

The Manhattan project proceeded with an awareness that ionizing radiation was not a good thing for human health and it tested the limits of exposure. Three men died using criticality experiments; they had been exposed to radiation in the realm of 3-5,000 MSv.

Most scientists believed that there was a lower dose at which no damage would occur; they knew, however that nausea and vomiting occurred at exposures in the realm of 50 MSv.

 

Terrible experiments rivaling anything carried out by the Nazis occurred – injections of plutonium-239 into patients considered “terminal”, irradiation of prisoners’ testicles, whole body exposure to intense radiation. Practically all of these experiments were done under the secrecy of war and no information was given to the patients.

 

But the war ended, followed by the cold war, the construction of nuclear bombs and then the atmospheric detonation of nuclear bombs and the construction of nuclear power plants to produce the explosives for the bombs. Studying human response to ionizing radiation continued nevertheless – more than 700 pregnant women were given radioactive iron to drink. They were not informed and did not give consent.

 

Atmospheric Testing

 

Several scientists were a little concerned about the fallout from nuclear testing and the effects upon people.

 

Linus Pauling estimated that almost half a million children would be affected. Herman Muller, he of fruit fly fame, said that there was no level of radioactivity that was safe.

 

Then Ernest Sternglass upset everyone by describing a loss of 300,000 children in the generations exposed to atmospheric testing.

 

How he made this estimation: Following state health records, Sternglass noted that from the dates at which statistics were recorded, in the 1930’s, each year recorded more and more healthy one year olds – healthier kids, sulpha drugs for infections, healthy mothers. Then, the year after the beginning of atmospheric testing, the annual increase stops. The 300,000 missing one year olds are calculated from the difference between the expected number of one year olds and the actual. Where were these children?

 

The Atomic Energy Commission of the USA gave the figures to John Goffman with that question; his colleague re-did the calculations and came up with a figure of a missing 4000 children. 

 

The AEC was not happy. Their message to Gofman was that the number had to be zero. Which is what they published.

 

Baby tooth Project

 

Two iterations – the first occurred in the cold war era, simply assessing the amount of strontium 90 in baby teeth. When strontium-90 was found and JFK knew about it, atmospheric testing ceased temporarily. 

 

The follow-up study was done in the early 2000’s 

Dr. Alice Stewart in the UK

 

Dr. Rosalie Bertell in the Tri-State Study in the USA

 

Thyroid Cancer from Chernobyl

 

Background radiation – Swiss study

 

There are a number of studies that have been opportunistic – people have been irradiated for their illnesses and then followed for side effects:

 

Ankylosing Spondylitis – a painful inflammation of the joints between the pelvic bones and the spine. Patients were followed for 11 years starting five years after a course of treatment. All cancers of the chest and abdomen were increased in incidence among the population of 6,838 people. The greatest increase was in pancreatic cancer – an increase of 60%. 

 

TB was treated with chest fluoroscopy in a widespread series of patients in Nova Scotia ending in the 1950’s. A follow-up study published in 1969 showed that breast cancer was radiologically inducible.

 

Israeli children, 2,215 of them, were irradiated for tinea capitus (ringworm) of the scalp. When followed up years later, there were eight brain tumors among the irradiated children and none in a control group of 1,395 children. 

 

In a 1979 study of the same irradiated children, there were found to be 7 tumors of the salivary glands in the exposed children, one tumor in the unexposed.

 

Kikk Study of children around twelve nuclear power plants in Germany showed that there was a consistent increase in incidence of leukemia among children – that increased the closer the child was to the power plant. The researchers concluded that children had a larger chance of suffering from leukemia if they were closer to a NPP – but that they didn’t know why because, based upon what they knew about the NPP, that simply shouldn’t be so. 

 

How could they deny their own findings? They accepted the nuclear power average radioactive release from the PP over three months as exposure of the child, ignoring that the child would have spent part of the time in the uterus. Fetuses have special sensitivity to radiation. They also ignored that fact that the amount of radiation released that the NPP provided was an average – while the practice of the NPP operators was to release radioactive gasses including tritium whenever the pressure became too great, not in a continuous fashion so the “average” consisted of small bursts of radioactivity.

 

Brachytherapy and external targeted radiation. Use of these will increase the risk for other cancers by 8%. Most people will accept the use of the radionuclide for the treatment of their cancer but are they told?[1]

 

PET scans or MIBI scans: There is an increase of 3% per 100 mSv exposures.

 

Finally, nuclear proponents like to bring our attention to our continual exposure to background radiation as proof that radiation, if not good for us, at least is not dramatically harmful.

 

Not quite true. The Swiss did a study looking at all types of cancers in populations exposed to different levels of background radiation and found that for almost all cancers, as the background exposure increased, so did the incidences of cancer.

 

So what are the health effects to humans and all other living things of having more nuclear power stations, making more bombs and making more radioactive waste lasting more than 250,000 years.

 

By what right does our generation have to condemn the future to this gradually measurable new reality of radioactivity?



[1] I have yet to meet a patient who has been told about the increased risk.

 

Wednesday 18 August 2021

Nuclear Mythology Spin

Michael Barnard's title was "Small Nuclear Reactor Advocates Refuse to Learn the Lessons of the Past". I would contend that they have learned the lessons very well. They have learned how to spin information to the public so that it appears new. They have learned that legislators are an easy prey with government money and they know how to get it.

Much of the interest is driven by governmental policies and investments focusing on the technology. Much of it comes from the nuclear industry. Some comes from entrepreneurs hoping that their technology will take off in a major way, making them and their investors a lot of money.

Much of this post is paraphrased or directly quoted from Michael's excellent article - which I have also tweeted and facebooked and which can be accessed here:  https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/small-nuclear-reactor-advocates-refuse-to-learn-the-lessons-of-the-past-8ca1af3293c3  Because I was in the process of writing a blog with the same general approach, I've lost track of a lot of who wrote what but inserted quotation marks where it is clearly Michael's words. 

"Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then."

Michael then explores briefly "the world of small modular nuclear reactors (SMNR) or small and medium reactors (SMR)". The most common acronym is SMR.

"They are nuclear generation devices, nuclear fission thermal generation. They use fissile material heat emissions, to heat a liquid which creates steam which drives turbines to generate electricity."

"The biggest difference between them and traditional nuclear generation reactors is that they are smaller, hence the ‘small’ and ‘medium’ in the names." According to the International Atomic Energy Commission, small is any reactor with a capacity less than 300 MW and medium for up to 700 MW. 

"This is not new technology. The first nuclear generation plant in the world was a Russian 5 MW device that went live in 1954. Hundreds of small reactors have been built for nuclear powered vessels and as neutron sources. This is well trodden ground. Most of the innovations being touted were considered initially decades ago."

Table of SMNR’s types and their status can be found on the World Nuclear Association webpages.

In the seven decades since the first SMR was commissioned, 57 different designs and concepts have been designed, developed and, rarely, built. Most of the ones which are built are getting older without new ones being built to replace them.

The Russian models are far-north icebreaker power plants being considered for land-based deployment in remote northern towns, Indian ones are 14 small CANDU variants decades old, and one Chinese plant is at the end of its 40-year life span.

An Argentinean model has been in construction on and off for over a decade and may never see the light of day. The Chinese HTR-PM, under construction for the past decade, is the only one with remotely new technology. If commissioned, it is expected to be the first Gen IV reactor in operation. 

What we are being sold isn’t just one technology, it’s many technologies. A literal Heinz-57 variants of 18 types have been promoted. None are dominant.

"Advocates for SMRs typically make some subset of the following claims:

·       They are safer

·       They can be manufactured in scaled, centralized manufacturing facilities so they will be cheaper

·       They can provide clean power for remote facilities or communities

·       They can be deployed onto decommissioned coal generation brownfield sites

·       They can be built faster

None of these are good arguments."

"First, traditional nuclear is safe already, due to passive safety features in the majority of operational reactors and lots of attention to management and operations. Chernobyl was a bad design. Fukushima was due to deeply bad siting and operational decisions. Those siting and operational decisions have resulted into a cost which is likely to be around a trillion US Dollars to the overall Japanese economy when all the bills are counted. SMRs aren’t immune to bad siting and bad operational decisions.

"Nuclear is not failing in the marketplace because of safety concerns although those are still real, economics are why nuclear is failing in the marketplace.

"Second, In order for economies of scale to kick in, a manufacturing facility has to build hundreds, thousands or millions of the same thing and have a projected future market for hundreds or thousands more. The field is littered with 18 different types of technologies and many competing designs within those types. There is no coherent single technology which will dominate the field. Each country engaged in SMR research has its own preferred technologies and its own companies to support. "

The nuclear industry should be faced with at least as much scrutiny as anyone else that wants money to start their business. If they are as good as their proponents say, maybe they should compete on the T-V show, Dragon’s Den?

"No scaled manufacturing, no cost reductions. NuScale’s expressed hope is to get its cost of generation down to only double the current wholesale cost of wind and solar generation, around $65 per MWh.

"Third, both remote communities have major security exposures. As nuclear technologies and fuels are highly proscribed and limited due to nuclear non-proliferation strategic goals, and as concentrated radioactive material is highly desirable for terrorists for dirty bombs, the entire supply, operational and waste chain requires significant overlapping circles of defense.

"These requirements don’t go away because the nuclear reactors are smaller.

Per reactor allocation of all security costs for US fleet. Table by Michael Barnard published in 2021

     "And these security costs are big, and mostly hidden in federal, state, and municipal subsidies.Remote areas still require these additional security costs, and they will likely be higher simplydue to the additional challenges of securing remote areas with high transportation costs. 

"There will be no fast deployment of SMRs. They need to be standardized, shippable units. Right now, the units under construction. Nu Scale is promising an unrealistic 12 units in operation by 2029, but the $1.4 billion bail-out it received after several municipalities walked away from the rising costs and schedule don’t suggest that’s realistic.

"Are there other problems with SMRs?

"Yes, yes there are, three of them.

1.    They can’t take advantage of vertical scaling. As discussed, they cannot achieve economies of manufacturing scale due to the sheer number of competing technologies and lack of any strategy to resolve the issue. In addition to  failing the horizontal scaling challenge, they don’t scale vertically either. Most energy production becomes more efficient as the plants become larger – there is an optimum diameter of pipes for efficient fluid and steam transfer. Bigger diameter pipes move a lot more fluid more efficiently. Gates’ Terrapower is designing a 1,200 MW capacity reactor, so they seem to have received the vertical scaling memo but this just puts them back into the same cost problem as normal reactors.

2.    Decommissioning a nuclear reactor is a billion USD, 100-year venture. I’ve heard it said that they were small enough to be buried in situ. That was wishful thinking. US data suggests that a clean-up or decommissioning would cost $70 billion of taxpayers’ dollars in addition to the amount that is put aside during operation for clean-up. The other suggestion is that the reactors would be returned to a centralized processing site for decommissioning. This totally begs sanity – no one would ship the highly radioactive nuclear core from an old nuclear power plant across the country. Furthermore no country in the world has managed to build a centralized nuclear waste repository, so this is deeply unlikely.

3.    No nuclear reactor is commissioned with private insurance. Every country with a nuclear generation fleet has enacted legislation which caps private liability at some level and puts any liability above that level onto the shoulders of taxpayers. In the US at present that’s $13 billion for the entire sector, around $131 million per reactor. These sound like big numbers, but as was pointed out earlier, Fukushima’s liability is in the trillion USD range. 

So who Is advocating For SMRs & why?"

At present we see SMR-earmarked funds in both Canadian and US federal budgets, mostly for research and development with the exception of over a billion to NuScale to, in theory, build something. Four provinces in Canada — Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan — have signed MOU with SMR development.

The conditions for failure of small modular reactors are obvious. "The lack of a significant market is obvious. No one wants them. In a Heinz-57 field, the lack of ability to create a clear winner is obvious. The security costs are obvious. The lack of vertical scaling for thermal efficiency is obvious. The security risks and associated costs are obvious. The liability insurance cap implications are obvious. So why is all of this money and energy being thrown at SMRs? 

Let’s start with the worst perspective. The Canadian provinces which focused on SMRs call this a major part of their climate change solutions. New Brunswick has an old, expensive, and due-to-retire reactor, as well as a track record of throwing money away on bad energy ideas, like Joi Scientific’s hydrogen perpetual motion machines. Ontario has a nuclear fleet and been actively hostile to renewable energy, to the extent that the current administration cut up 758 contracts on renewables to the tune of $250,000,000. Furthermore, the government legislated a lack of recourse. All of them have premiers with no education beyond high school and negative attitudes to science and to education. 

They are deferring real governmental climate action while claiming the appearance of climate action. They pander to their least wise supporters by asserting that renewables won’t work for their purpose, while SMRs aren’t even in a modern, deployable, operable form yet.

At one time it could be argued that renewables were too expensive, that they would cause grid unreliability and hence that nuclear was necessary. This been disproven by nuclear deployment failures, and plummeting costs and proven reliability of renewables. Every serious analyst agrees that renewables can economically deliver 80% of required grid energy. A debate exists about the remaining 20%.

A Stanford research team is at the centre of this debate. Since the late ‘00s, they’ve been publishing regular studies of increasing scope and sophistication on the thesis of 100% renewables by 2050. Their 2015 publication saw a lot of push-back. People thought that nuclear would be necessary. As in-stream hydro, improved storage and various geothermal accesses have illustrated, some of these same analysts are now saying it’s the last 10% of the problem which is the challenge.

It will take to work to integrate renewables into our energy grid in sufficient numbers to bring their total to 80 - 90%. Our energy research dollars should be directed towards solving the problems that arise as we transition to sustainable renewable energy instead of supporting a dying industry. 

If we are really worried about that last 10-20%, research dollars can be spent on SMRs, which is all most of the SMR expenditures amount to. (On the other hand,  the 1.4 billion dollar NuScale bailout strains credibility especially when it is added to the Ohio $1.3 billion bailout, which is added to the annual $1.7 billion overt federal subsidy, which is added to the annual hidden $4 billion security subsidy which is added to the $70 billion unfunded cleanup subsidy, which is added to the un-costed and unfunded taxpayer liability). 

I have come to the conclusion that people asserting that SMRs are the primary or only answer to energy generation either don’t know what they are talking about, are actively dissembling or are intentionally delaying climate action. They may believe their own media spin.