MEGAWATTS AND MEGATONS: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age? Richard L. Garwin Georges Charpak New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
ISBN-13 978-0-375-40394-1 | ||||
ISBN 0-375-40394-9 | 412pp. | HC/GSI | $30.00 |
Technologies tapping the enormous energies churning within the nucleus of the atom have had world-changing impacts. The list includes nuclear medicine, radiography, isotope-dating of pre-historical artifacts, commercial nuclear-power reactors, and of course the atomic bombs unleashed at the end of World War 2 and the subsequent nuclear arms race. But here I am primarily concerned with the impact of radiation on human health. Assessing that impact is a complex task. Typically it requires a graduate degree in health physiology with a specialization in radiation physics. The authors devote several chapters to the topic. I present some aspects of their work here.
They begin by discussing the various units used to measure radioactivity. I summarize these in Table 1. There are many sources of natural radiation, and modern life throws additional exposures at us in forms such as dental x-rays, radiation therapy for cancer, lingering fallout from open-air atom-bomb tests in the 1960s, high-altitude air travel, and more. I attempt to tally these in Table 2.
Name | Symbol | Definition | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
The authors propose a unit of human exposure based on the natural radioactivity found within every living person. Called the DARI, it measures the average exposure during 1 year from potassium-40 and carbon-14 — a dose which measures 170 microsieverts. | |||
Becquerel | Bq | 1 radioactive decay per second | Useful in monitoring radioactive contaminants1 |
Curie | Ci | The radioactivity of 1 gram of radium: 1 Ci = 3.72x1010 Bq |
Used to measure quantity and activity of bulk radioisotopes. |
Gray | Gy | 1 Joule of energy deposited per kilogram of tissue |
A very large unit in terms of human exposure |
Roentgen | R | 1 unit of charge per cc of air = 80 ergs per gram of air |
Becoming obsolete |
Rad | rad | 1 rad = 0.01 Gy | Currently the best-known unit of radiation exposure |
Biological equivalence factor | Q | Depends on type of radiation. | The less penetrating the rays, the higher their Q. For example, the Q of alpha rays is 20, while x-rays have a Q of 1. |
Roentgen-equivalent-man | rem | 1 rem = 1 rad / Q | Used more often in medical literature. |
Sievert | Sv | 1 Sv = 100 rem; 1 Gy = Q Sv |
Modern measure of biologically effective dose |
The natural sources include radioactive forms of potassium and carbon in our own bodies, uranium and thorium found in rocks, and radon gas from the decay of uranium. The thing to remember is that we have grown up amid these exposures, not just as individuals, but as a species. We therefore have a certain amount of radiation tolerance built in. Averaged over the world's population, annual exposure from natural sources is 2.4 millisievert. Keep this baseline level in mind when comparing the exposures given in Table 2. The danger from artificial radiation such as fallout comes when that exposure substantially exceeds the natural radiation levels.
Where | Decay | Typical | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Source | Found | Count | Exposure | Notes |
Internal decay rates and typical exposures based on a body mass of 70 kg (157 lb). Unless otherwise stated, figures are for the USA. This table is based on data in Chapter 4 of Garwin & Chartak, especially Figure 4.2 and Table 4.1. |
||||
Potassium 40 | Internal | 3850 Bq | 165 µSv | Pervades all of Earth |
Carbon 14 | Internal | 4140 Bq | 12 µSv | Found in all living things |
Potassium 40 | Rocks | n/a | 460 µSv | Soil, masonry, rocks esp. granite |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 140 µSv | Dental exam |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 150 µSv | Pulmonary diagnosis |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 20 µSv | Chest x-ray |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 1000 µSv | Mammography |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 3500 µSv | Cranial CAT scan |
X-rays | Medical | n/a | 9000 µSv | Abdominal CAT scan |
Radon | Th-232, U-235 | n/a | 1300 µSv | Decay product of thorium & uranium; found in all rocks |
Cesium 137 | Fallout | 920 Bq | ? µSv | Peak value: Belgium, 1965 |
Cosmic rays | The Cosmos | n/a | 260 µSv | Florida or New York City (sea level) |
Cosmic rays | The Cosmos | n/a | 500 µSv | Denver, CO (1,600m) |
Cosmic rays | The Cosmos | n/a | 1250 µSv | Leadville, CO (3,100m) |
Cosmic rays | The Cosmos | n/a | 2000 µSv | La Paz, Bolivia (3,900m) |
Cosmic rays | The Cosmos | n/a | 15,000 µSv | Air travel at 37k feet (11,200m) |
While acknowledging that there is ample reason for public wariness toward nuclear technology, the authors offer this sound advice about radioactive contamination (pages 79-80):
This extraordinary sensitivity of the methods of measuring radioactivity has ironically been turned against them in some of the present debates about the potential harm from low doses of radiation. Instances of radioactive contamination that are in many cases much lower than the natural radioactivity of the human body are vehemently denounced, and presented as a particular hazard resulting from nuclear energy. Effects from other energy sources that are actually more pernicious are ignored simply because these effects are more difficult to measure. This often disserves public understanding of the relative dangers of various human activities—an understanding to which this book is intended to contribute. |
The following table shows the principal radioisotopes found in spent fuel rods from a 1 Gigawatt-electric light-water-moderated nuclear power plant. Amounts are expressed as kilograms produced in one year of plant operation. Equivalent in Natural Doses is calculated by dividing the average worldwide annual exposure of 2.4mSv, cited above, into the given values of "Dose per Gram Ingested (Sv)". Some of the half-life values given in the book were corrected as noted.
Annual | Dose per gram | Equivalent in | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Isotope | Half-life (Y) | Burden (kg) | Ingested (Sv) | Natural Doses | Notes |
Based on data from page 121 and Table 5.1 of Garwin & Charpak. | |||||
Minor Actinides | |||||
Neptunium-237 | 2,144,000 | 10 | 2.9 | 1,208 | Half-life from NUDAT 2.1 |
Americium-241 | 432.2 | 5 | 26,000 | 1.08x107 | Decays to Np-237; half-life from NUDAT 2.1 |
Americium-243 | 7,370 | 5 | 1,500 | 625,000 | Decays to Pu-239; half-life from NUDAT 2.1 |
Curium-244 | 18.1 | 0.5 | 3.6x105 | 1.5x108 | Half-life from NUDAT 2.1 |
Curium-245 | 8,500 | 0.5 | 1,300 | 541,667 | Half-life from NUDAT 2.1; authors give 8,532 |
Fission Products | |||||
Technetium-99 | 211,100 | 18 | 0.04 | 16.7 | Half-life from NUDAT 2.1; authors give 2.16MY |
Zirconium-93 | 1,530,000 | 16 | 0.10 | 41.7 | Half-life from NUDAT 2.1 |
One of the best features about this book is its frequent reminders to keep the dangers presented by nuclear power in proper perspective. Examples are Table 7.2, which compares the radiation exposures due to nuclear and coal-fired power plants, and Table 7.3, which gives the 1994 death rates from familiar causes like motor vehicle accidents. To this second table, the authors added the expected deaths due to the nuclear fuel cycle and the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reactor accidents. (The sound-bite version: Chernobyl 1, coronaries 876.) Noteworthy, too, is this comment from page 200:
We have seen that widespread disease attributed to the Chernobyl disaster could not in fact have been caused by radiation. On the other hand, the nuclear industry's reluctance to take seriously the 24,000 cancer deaths that we expect as a result of Chernobyl is reminiscent of the tobacco firms in their ludicrous and deceptive charade of maintaining, until 1997, that nicotine was not addictive. The nuclear industry and official bodies would benefit from honesty in this matter. For example, in UNSCEAR 1993 (p. 23) we find this candid statement regarding Chernobyl: "The collective effective dose committed by this accident is estimated to have been about 600,000 man-Sv." But, in UNSCEAR 2000 there is no overall collective dose estimated—only (vol. II, p. 486) that the "estimated effective lifetime dose" for Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine totals about 60,000 man-Sv. Ignoring the dose to the rest of the world is not progress. |
This last table compares the radiation emission from 1-GWe nuclear power plants using both the once-through (i.e. direct disposal) and recycling fuel cycles against that from a coal-fired plant of equivalent electrical output. According to the authors, exposure values in the table represent "Collective effective dose to the public from effluents of the nuclear fuel cycle. Dose commitment in person-Sv per GWe-yr of operation." I have some concern over whether the numbers are accurate. I also corrected two addition mistakes found in the authors' Table 7.2.
The thing to note is that the concept of nuclear plants exposing the public to radiation while coal-burning plants do not is just simplistic. Note too that such a coal-fired plant burns 2 million tons of coal per year, and releases quantities of carbon dioxide as well as some level of nitrogen oxides (contributors to photochemical smog), sulfur oxide (contributor to acid rain), and mercury (a toxic metal).
Nuclear | Coal | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Phase of Operation | Once-Thru | Recycle | Notes | |
Adapted from Table 7.2 (page 198). The values are "dose commitment in person-Sv per GWe-yr of operation." | ||||
Local & Regional Component | ||||
Mining | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.002 | |
Plant Operation | 1.3 | 1.3 | 20 | (atmospheric release during operation) |
Total Local & Regional | 2.4 | 2.2 | 20 | |
Solid Waste & Global Component | ||||
Mine & Mill Tailings | 150 | 120 | 0 | (release over 10,000 years) |
Plant Operation, disposal of intermediate waste | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | |
Reprocessing, solid-waste disposal | 0 | 1.2 | 125 | (5% of fly ash from coal-fired plants used in concrete for buildings) |
Reprocessing, globally dispersed radionuclides | 0 | 217 | 0 | (release over 10,000 years) |
Total Solid Waste & Global | 151 | 339 | 125 | |
Totals for Both Components | ||||
Grand Total | 153 | 341 | 145 |
Finding a definitive source for half-life values on the Web proved more difficult than I expected. I initially searched for a list that gave all isotopes in order by name and mass-number, together with the corresponding half-life values. I failed to find that sort of table. I did find some that gave a subset of isotopes, but no one of those had all the isotopes I wanted to know about, and the half-life values they gave for a given isotope were not consistent.
So I turned to the table of nuclides. Quite a few Web-based tables of nuclides exist, but they represent the isotopes as a matrix of tiny squares colored according to activity level. The size of the squares makes it hard to pick the isotope you want; thus these tables are somewhat unwieldy to use. Eventually I discovered Brookhaven Labs' "NUDAT 2.1 Table of Nuclides". This follows a similar format; but when you hover the mouse cursor over any square, a "tooltip" pops up to tell you the element symbol and isotope mass number. With a little practice, I could home in on the ones I wanted very quickly. Also, Brookhaven seems to be the ultimate source for such data. I based my corrections on its table.
For those interested, here's the link, in Brookhaven-approved citation format: