tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/radioactive-waste-16897/articlesRadioactive waste – The Conversation2024-03-18T13:45:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1994412024-03-18T13:45:00Z2024-03-18T13:45:00Z100,000 years and counting: how do we tell future generations about highly radioactive nuclear waste repositories?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519023/original/file-20230403-22-qlgar9.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C20%2C3456%2C2276&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in Sweden, where KBS-3 repository technologies have been tested.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anna Storm</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Europe, increasing efforts on climate change mitigation, a sudden focus on energy independence after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and reported breakthroughs in <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate/index.html">nuclear fusion</a> have sparked renewed interest in the potential of nuclear power. So-called <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2023/05/17/french-government-passes-bill-to-accelerate-the-construction-of-new-nuclear-reactors_6026936_19.html">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs) are increasingly under development, and familiar promises about nuclear power’s potential are being revived.</p>
<p>Nuclear power is routinely portrayed by proponents as the source of <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/05/world/iter-nuclear-fusion-climate-intl-cnnphotos/">“limitless”</a> amounts of carbon-free electricity. The rhetorical move from speaking about “renewable energy” to “fossil-free energy” is increasingly evident, and telling.</p>
<p>Yet nuclear energy production requires managing what is known as “spent” nuclear fuel where major problems arise about how best to safeguard these waste materials into the future – especially should nuclear energy production increase. Short-term storage facilities have been in place for decades, but the question of their long-term deposition has caused <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-radioactive-problem-struggles-dispose-nuclear-waste-french-nuclear-facility/">intense political debates</a>, with a number of projects being <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-nuclear-phaseout-leaves-radioactive-waste-problem/a-66661614">delayed</a> or <a href="https://ejatlas.org/print/nuclear-waste-storage-near-the-spanish-frontier-of-portugal">cancelled entirely</a>. In the United States, work on the Yucca Mountain facility has <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html">stopped completely</a> leaving the country with 93 nuclear reactors and no long-term storage site for the waste they produce.</p>
<p>Nuclear power plants produce three <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/oekoinstitut/23144291019">kinds of radioactive waste</a>: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste; </p></li>
<li><p>Long-lived low- and intermediate-level waste; </p></li>
<li><p>Long-lived and highly radioactive waste, known as spent nuclear fuel.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The critical challenge for nuclear energy production is the management of long-lived waste, which refers to nuclear materials that take thousands of years to return to a level of radioactivity that is deemed “safe”. According to the US <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a> (NRC), in spent fuel half of the radiation in strontium-90 and cesium-137 can decay in 30 years, while it would take 24,000 years for plutonium-239 to return to a state considered “harmless”. However, exactly what is meant by “safe” and “harmless” in this context is something that <a href="https://www.xcdsystem.com/wmsym/2018/pdfs/FinalPaper_18430_0321010427.pdf">remains poorly defined</a> by international nuclear management organisations, and there is surprisingly little international consensus about the time it takes for radioactive waste to return to a state considered “safe” for organic life.</p>
<h2>“Permanent” geological repositories</h2>
<p>Despite the seeming revival of nuclear energy production today, very few of the countries that produce nuclear energy have defined a long-term strategy for managing highly radioactive spent fuel into the future. Only Finland and Sweden have confirmed plans for so-called “final” or “permanent” geological repositories.</p>
<p>The Swedish government <a href="https://skb.com/nyhet/the-government-approves-skbs-final-repository-system/">granted approval</a> for a final repository in the village of Forsmark in January 2022, with plans to construct, fill and seal the facility over the next century. This repository is designed to last 100,000 years, which is how long planners say that it will take to return to a level of radioactivity comparable to uranium found in the earth’s bedrock.</p>
<p>Finland is well underway in the construction of its <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-store-nuclear-waste-can-it-survive-100000-years">Onkalo high-level nuclear waste repository</a>, which they began building in 2004 with plans to seal their facility by the end of the 21st century.</p>
<p>The technological method that Finland and Sweden plan to use in their permanent repositories is referred to as <a href="https://skb.com/future-projects/the-spent-fuel-repository/our-methodology/">KBS-3 storage</a>. In this method, spent nuclear fuel is encased in cast iron, which is then placed inside copper canisters, which are then surrounded by clay and bedrock approximately 500 metres below ground. The same or similar methods are being considered by other countries, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-waste-whats-the-plan-and-can-it-be-safe-181884">such as the United Kingdom</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582198/original/file-20240315-26-xd0r1h.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A test KBS-3 canister buried underground at the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in Sweden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anna Storm</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sweden and Finland have described KBS-3 as a world-first nuclear-waste management solution. It is the product of decades of scientific research and negotiation with stakeholders, in particular with the communities that will eventually live near the buried waste.</p>
<p>Critical questions remain about the storage method, however. There have been widely publicised concerns in Sweden about the <a href="https://www.mkg.se/en/scientifically-inferior-skb-report-on-copper-corrosion-in-lot-project-shows-that-copper-is-not">corrosion of test copper canisters</a> after just a few decades. This is worrying, to say the least, because it’s based on a principle of passive safety. The storage sites will be constructed, the canisters filled and sealed, and then everything will be left in the ground without any human monitoring its safe functioning and with no technological option for retrieving it. Yet, over 100,000 years the prospect of human or non-human intrusion into the site – both accidental or intentional – remains a serious threat.</p>
<h2>The Key Information File</h2>
<p>Another major problem is how to communicate the presence of buried nuclear waste to future generations. If spent fuel remains dangerous for 100,000 years, then clearly this is a time frame where languages can disappear and where the existence of humanity cannot be guaranteed. Transferring information about these sites into the future is a sizeable task that demands expertise and collaboration internationally across the social sciences and sciences into practices of nuclear waste memory transfer – what we refer to as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687231174242">nuclear memory communication</a>.</p>
<p>In a project commissioned by the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company (SKB), we take up this precise task by writing the “Key Information File” – a document aimed at non-expert readers containing only the most essential information about Sweden’s nuclear waste repository under development.</p>
<p>The Key Information File has been <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15060/preservation-of-records-knowledge-and-memory-across-generations-developing-a-key-information-file-for-a-radioactive-waste-repository">formulated</a> as a summary document that would help future readers understand the dangers posed by buried waste. Its purpose is to guide the reader to where they can find more detailed information about the repository – acting as a “key” to other archives and forms of nuclear memory communication until the site’s closure at the end of the 21st century. What happens to the Key Information File after this time is undecided, yet communicating the information that it contains to future generations is crucial.</p>
<p>The Key Information File we will publish in 2024 is intended to be securely stored at the entrance to the nuclear waste repository in Sweden, as well as at the National Archives in Stockholm. To ensure its durability and survival through time, the plan is for it to be <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15088/preservation-of-records-knowledge-and-memory-across-generations-final-report">reproduced in different media formats and translated into multiple languages</a>. The initial version is in English and, when finalised, it will be translated into Swedish and other languages that have yet to be decided.</p>
<p>Our aim is for the file to be updated every 10 years to ensure that essential information is correct and that it remains understandable to a wide audience. We also see the need for the file to be incorporated into other intergenerational practices of knowledge transfer in the future – from its inclusion into educational syllabi in schools, to the use of graphic design and artwork to make the document distinctive and memorable, to the formation of international networks of Key Information File writing and storage in countries where, at the time of writing, decisions have not yet been made about how to store highly radioactive long-lived nuclear waste.</p>
<h2>Fragility and short-termism: a great irony</h2>
<p>In the process of writing the Key Information File, we have discovered many issues surrounding the efficacy of these strategies for communicating memory of nuclear waste repositories into the future. One is the remarkable fragility of programs and institutions – on more than one occasion in recent years, it has taken just one person to retire from a nuclear organisation for the knowledge of an entire programme of memory communication to be halted or even lost.</p>
<p>And if it is difficult to preserve and communicate crucial information even in the short term, what chance do we have over 100,000 years?</p>
<p>International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.</p>
<p>Responding to these challenges, even partially, requires governments and research funders internationally to provide the capacity for long-term intergenerational research on these and related issues. It also demands care in developing succession plans for retiring experts to ensure their institutional knowledge and expertise is not lost. In Sweden, this could also mean committing long-term funding from the <a href="http://www.karnavfallsfonden.se/informationinenglish.4.725330be11efa4b0a3f8000131.html">Swedish nuclear waste fund</a> so that not only future technical problems with the waste deposition are tackled, but also future <em>societal</em> problems of memory and information transfer can be addressed by people with appropriate capacity and expertise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keating's work is partly supported by Svensk Kärnbränslehantering (grant no.24992). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Storm's work is partly supported by Svensk Kärnbränslehantering (grant no. 24992) and by the Swedish Research Council (grants no. 2020-00623 and no. 2020-06548).</span></em></p>Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous for so long that languages can disappear and humanity’s very existence cannot be guaranteed. So how do we communicate information about repositories into the future?Thomas Keating, Postdoctoral Researcher, Linköping UniversityAnna Storm, Professor of Technology and Social Change, Linköping UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2113442023-08-10T23:27:23Z2023-08-10T23:27:23ZThe Kimba nuclear waste plan bites the dust. Here’s what went wrong and how to do better next time<p>The federal government has scrapped plans to build the nation’s first <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation-and-licensing/safety-security-transport/radioactive-waste-disposal-and-storage/radioactive-waste">radioactive waste storage facility</a> on farmland near Kimba in South Australia. Frankly, it was never going to work. The plan was doomed from the start.</p>
<p>That’s because the “decide and defend” model, where a government decides to put radioactive waste somewhere and then attempts to defend it against the community, hasn’t worked anywhere. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom. It hasn’t worked in the United States. Those countries still don’t have any process for long-term management of radioactive waste. </p>
<p>The only country to successfully manage the process is Finland, where the community was engaged. Over a period of several years, the government worked with its people to find a place where the community as a whole was happy to have the radioactive waste, in return for compensation. They’re now building a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it">deep underground repository</a> for permanently storing their radioactive waste. </p>
<p>But Australia’s national government has made the same mistake three times now: a proposal in the Woomera area 20 years ago, Muckaty station in the Northern Territory ten years ago and now Napandee near Kimba. Deciding on a site and then trying to defend it against the community doesn’t work. The government really needs to understand this. The only way to manage our radioactive waste is to engage the community from the start. That means the whole community, including the land’s traditional owners.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fr7WP2IsB24?wmode=transparent&start=32" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">No nuclear waste dump for Kimba, South Australia as the federal government formally abandons the plan (ABC News, August 10, 2023)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Stacking the deck</h2>
<p>The Federal Court last month <a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0809">ruled</a> against plans by the former Coalition government to build the Kimba facility, after a court challenge by the traditional owners, the Barngarla people.</p>
<p>The traditional owners had not been consulted – in fact they were specifically excluded from the consultation process. And that’s why the Federal Court overturned the decision. </p>
<p>On Thursday morning, Federal Resources Minister <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/king/media-releases/statement-national-radioactive-waste-management-facility">Madeleine King</a> told the House of Representatives she would not challenge the Federal Court decision. </p>
<p>She described Kimba as “a town divided” and emphasised broad community support would have included “the whole community, including the traditional owners of the land”. </p>
<p>But she also drew attention to flaws in the plan, saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The previous Government sought to temporarily store intermediate level radioactive waste on agricultural land and contemplated the double handling of the transport of this waste; first from Lucas Heights in NSW, to temporary storage in SA, then on to an undetermined permanent disposal site. </p>
<p>This approach has raised concerns regarding international best practice and safety standards. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>King noted the amount of radioactive waste will keep growing, and said her department has begun work on alternative proposals.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1689443472326152192"}"></div></p>
<h2>Consulting traditional owners is crucial</h2>
<p>The Barngarla people understandably objected to nuclear waste being imposed on their land without their prior informed consent.</p>
<p>It might have been possible for the federal government to persuade them to accept low-level waste, which is given that classification because it has relatively low levels of radiation. If buried under a few metres of earth, the radiation reaching the surface is not much above normal background levels.</p>
<p>But the decision to use the site for temporary storage of the intermediate level waste from the Lucas Heights reactor in New South Wales was unlikely to get their approval.</p>
<p>And that raises a quite fundamental issue. Anywhere we want to store radioactive waste in Australia is the traditional land of a group of Indigenous people. Given the history of the Menzies government allowing <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/more-radiation-sources/british-nuclear-weapons-testing">nuclear weapons to be tested</a> here and the impacts that had on Indigenous people, it’s going to be very difficult to persuade Indigenous people to allow the permanent storage of radioactive waste on their land. </p>
<p>If it’s going to happen, it will require a long process of engagement and communication with Indigenous people to find a group somewhere that’s happy to manage the radioactive waste the community is producing.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1681468184220815361"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-long-and-devastating-history-behind-the-proposal-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia-158615">There's a long and devastating history behind the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What should happen next?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/australias-national-inventory-radioactive-waste-2021">vast majority (97%)</a> of the nuclear waste produced in this country is coming from Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. </p>
<p>The idea of shifting intermediate-level waste from Lucas Heights to another temporary store 1,700km away is particularly silly. The waste is quite nasty stuff that requires serious management. There’s no obvious reason it would have been better in a temporary store at Kimba than in the current temporary store of Lucas Heights. </p>
<p>People have accepted it at Lucas Heights. The sensible approach would be to leave it there until we find somewhere people are happy to have it permanently. </p>
<p>In the fine print of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian government has agreed to manage the radioactive waste from nuclear submarines sourced from the UK and the US. That raises a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hasnt-figured-out-low-level-nuclear-waste-storage-yet-let-alone-high-level-waste-from-submarines-201781">much more difficult issue</a>. </p>
<p>The Virginia class submarines use highly enriched uranium, which is weapons-grade material. It produces a more complex and intractable set of waste products than what’s produced at Lucas Heights. I’m not sure how many people understand Australia has taken that task on. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hasnt-figured-out-low-level-nuclear-waste-storage-yet-let-alone-high-level-waste-from-submarines-201781">Australia hasn't figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>Naturally, anti-nuclear campaigners welcomed this week’s announcement. But they also held out an olive branch to the federal government, recognising the waste problem hasn’t gone away. </p>
<p>The Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>ACF looks forward to constructive dialogue with the Albanese government to help develop a new and responsible approach to radioactive waste management in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now that the Kimba plan is officially dumped, the real work can finally begin to find a more credible and respectful approach to identifying a long-term storage and disposal site for Australia’s nuclear waste that is consistent with international best practice.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nU94go_hKfY?wmode=transparent&start=224" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How Finland plans to store uranium waste for 100,000 years (Science Magazine, 2022)</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211344/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe was for 12 years a member of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, which advises the regulator of nuclear issues. He was also a member of the Expert Advisory Committee for the South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission. </span></em></p>Now that plans for a national radioactive waste management facility near Kimba in South Australia have been abandoned, what next? Let’s learn from our mistakes.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2102622023-08-01T12:26:50Z2023-08-01T12:26:50ZThe nuclear arms race’s legacy at home: Toxic contamination, staggering cleanup costs and a culture of government secrecy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540032/original/file-20230729-63311-ud8ybo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=28%2C7%2C4716%2C3151&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Packaging excavated radioactive materials at the Hanford site in Washington state.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/cpEWtw">USDOE</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Christopher Nolan’s film “<a href="https://www.oppenheimermovie.com/">Oppenheimer</a>” has focused new attention on the legacies of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Manhattan-Project">Manhattan Project</a> – the World War II program to develop nuclear weapons. As the anniversaries of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/atomic-bombings-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki">bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki</a> on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945, approach, it’s a timely moment to look further at dilemmas wrought by the creation of the atomic bomb.</p>
<p>The Manhattan Project spawned a trinity of interconnected legacies. It initiated a <a href="https://theconversation.com/hiroshima-attack-marks-its-78th-anniversary-its-lessons-of-unnecessary-mass-destruction-could-help-guide-future-nuclear-arms-talks-210115">global arms race</a> that threatens the survival of humanity and the planet as we know it. It also led to widespread public health and environmental damage from nuclear weapons production and testing. And it generated a culture of governmental secrecy with troubling political consequences.</p>
<p><a href="https://chass.ncsu.edu/people/wjkinsel/">As a researcher</a> examining communication in science, technology, energy and environmental contexts, I’ve studied these <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739119044/Nuclear-Legacies-Communication-Controversy-and-the-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Complex">legacies of nuclear weapons production</a>. From 2000 to 2005, I also served on a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab">citizen advisory board</a> that provides input to federal and state officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at the <a href="https://www.hanford.gov/">Hanford nuclear site</a> in Washington state that continues today.</p>
<p>Hanford is less well known than Los Alamos, New Mexico, where scientists designed the first atomic weapons, but it was also crucial to the Manhattan Project. There, an enormous, secret industrial facility produced the plutonium fuel for the <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/trinity-test-1945/">Trinity test</a> on July 16, 1945, and the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki a few weeks later. (The Hiroshima bomb was fueled by uranium produced in <a href="https://www.energy.gov/em/oak-ridge">Oak Ridge, Tennessee,</a> at another of the principal Manhattan Project sites.) </p>
<p>Later, workers at Hanford <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html">made most of the plutonium</a> used in the U.S. nuclear arsenal throughout the Cold War. In the process, Hanford became one of the most contaminated places on Earth. Total cleanup costs are projected to reach <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105809.pdf">up to US$640 billion</a>, and the job won’t be completed for decades, if ever.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/66dALYGDySo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Hanford nuclear site in eastern Washington state is the most toxic site in the U.S.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Victims of nuclear tests</h2>
<p>Nuclear weapons production and testing have harmed public health and the environment in multiple ways. For example, a new study released in preprint form in July 2023 while awaiting scientific peer review finds that fallout from the Trinity nuclear test <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.11040.pdf">reached 46 U.S. states and parts of Canada and Mexico</a>. </p>
<p>Dozens of families who lived near the site – many of them Hispanic or Indigenous – were unknowingly exposed to radioactive contamination. So far, they <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-manhattan-project-nuclear-testing-los-alamos-trinity-victims.html">have not been included</a> in the federal program to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca">compensate uranium miners and “downwinders</a>” who developed radiation-linked illnesses after exposure to later atmospheric nuclear tests. </p>
<p>On July 27, 2023, however, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and <a href="https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/2023/08/01/radiation-nuclear-exposed-new-mexicans-trinity-site-compensated-us-senate-vote-oppenheimer/70484797007/">expand it to communities near the Trinity test site</a> in New Mexico. A companion bill is under consideration in the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/location/marshall-islands/">largest above-ground U.S. tests</a>, along with tests conducted underwater, took place in the Pacific islands. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and other nations conducted their own testing programs. <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally">Globally through 2017</a>, nuclear-armed nations exploded 528 weapons above ground or underwater, and an additional 1,528 underground. </p>
<p>Estimating <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0491-1">how many people have suffered health effects</a> from these tests is notoriously difficult. So is accounting for <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/location/marshall-islands/">disruptions to communities</a> that were displaced by these experiments.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1682786369179992066"}"></div></p>
<h2>Polluted soil and water</h2>
<p>Nuclear weapons production has also exposed many people, communities and ecosystems to radiological and toxic chemical pollution. Here, Hanford offers troubling lessons.</p>
<p>Starting in 1944, workers at the remote site in eastern Washington state irradiated uranium fuel in reactors and then dissolved it in acid to extract its plutonium content. Hanford’s nine reactors, located along the Columbia River to provide a source of cooling water, discharged water <a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=1001114">contaminated with radioactive and hazardous chemicals</a> into the river through <a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/nuclear-waste/hanford-cleanup/hanford-overview">1987, when the last operating reactor was shut down</a>.</p>
<p>Extracting plutonium from the irradiated fuel, an activity called reprocessing, generated 56 million gallons of liquid waste laced with radioactive and chemical poisons. The wastes were stored in <a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-monitoring-closure">underground tanks</a> designed to last 25 years, based on an assumption that a disposal solution would be developed later. </p>
<p>Seventy-eight years after the first tank was built, that solution remains elusive. A project to vitrify, or <a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-waste-treatment">embed tank wastes in glass</a> for permanent disposal, has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/nuclear-waste-cleanup.html">mired in technical, managerial and political difficulties</a>, and repeatedly threatened with cancellation. </p>
<p>Now, officials are considering mixing some radioactive sludges <a href="https://crosscut.com/environment/2022/12/hanford-considers-quicker-way-clean-radioactive-waste">with concrete grout</a> and shipping them elsewhere for disposal – or perhaps leaving them in the tanks. Critics regard those proposals as <a href="https://www.hanfordchallenge.org/inheriting-hanford/2023/3/17/should-we-grout-tank-waste-at-hanford">risky compromises</a>. Meanwhile, an <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/energy/safety-resiliency/Pages/Hanford-Tank-Waste.aspx">estimated 1 million gallons</a> of liquid waste have leaked from some tanks into the ground, threatening the Columbia River, a backbone of the Pacific Northwest’s economy and ecology.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing cutaways of Hanford radioactive waste tanks." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540033/original/file-20230729-24848-e523wv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Underground waste tanks at the Hanford site, many of which are operating decades past their original design life. In total, they hold about 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes. The Department of Energy has removed liquid wastes from all single-shell tanks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-73.pdf">USGAO</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Radioactive trash still litters parts of Hanford. Irradiated bodies of laboratory animals were <a href="https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Workers-uncover-carcasses-of-Hanford-test-animals-1225341.php">buried there</a>. The site houses radioactive debris ranging from medical waste to <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/energy/safety-resiliency/Pages/Naval-Nuclear-Transport.aspx">propulsion reactors from decommissioned submarines</a> and <a href="https://pdw.hanford.gov/document/E0025397?">parts of the reactor</a> that partially melted down at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. Advocates for a full Hanford cleanup warn that without such a commitment, the site will become a “<a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Tainted-Desert-Environmental-and-Social-Ruin-in-the-American-West/Kuletz/p/book/9780415917711">national sacrifice zone</a>,” a place abandoned in the name of national security.</p>
<h2>A culture of secrecy</h2>
<p>As the movie “Oppenheimer” shows, government secrecy has shrouded nuclear weapons activities from their inception. Clearly, the science and technology of those weapons have dangerous potential and require careful safeguarding. But <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284">as I’ve argued previously</a>, the principle of secrecy quickly expanded more broadly. Here again, Hanford provides an example.</p>
<p>Hanford’s reactor fuel was sometimes reprocessed before its most-highly radioactive isotopes had time to decay. In the 1940s and 1950s, managers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/24/us/northwest-plutonium-plant-had-big-radioactive-emissions-in-40-s-and-50-s.html">knowingly released toxic gases into the air</a>, contaminating farmlands and pastures downwind. Some releases supported an <a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199602/backpage.cfm">effort to monitor Soviet nuclear progress</a>. By tracking deliberate emissions from Hanford, scientists learned better how to spot and evaluate Soviet nuclear tests.</p>
<p>In the mid-1980s, local residents grew suspicious about an apparent excess of illnesses and deaths in their community. Initially, strict secrecy – reinforced by the region’s economic dependence on the Hanford site – made it hard for concerned citizens to get information.</p>
<p>Once the curtain of secrecy was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284">partially lifted</a> under pressure from area residents and journalists, public outrage prompted <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/background.pdf">two major health effects studies</a> that engendered fierce controversy. By the close of the decade, more than 3,500 “downwinders” had filed lawsuits related to illnesses they attributed to Hanford. A judge finally <a href="http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article57866938.html">dismissed the case</a> in 2016 after awarding limited compensation to a handful of plaintiffs, leaving a bitter legacy of legal disputes and personal anguish.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Au5tjNh87Ec?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Plaintiff Trisha Pritikin and attorney Tom Foulds reflect on 25 years of litigation over illnesses that ‘downwinders’ developed as a result of exposure to Hanford’s radiation releases.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cautionary legacies</h2>
<p>Currently active atomic weapons facilities also have seen their share of nuclear and toxic chemical contamination. Among them, <a href="https://www.lanl.gov/">Los Alamos National Laboratory</a> – home to Oppenheimer’s original compound, and now a site for both military and civilian research – has contended with <a href="https://www.newmexicopbs.org/productions/groundwater-war/2021/02/24/forever-chemicals-found-in-los-alamos-waters/">groundwater pollution</a>, <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-identifies-new-workplace-safety-problems-at-los-alamos-lab">workplace hazards</a> related to the toxic metal beryllium, and gaps in emergency planning and <a href="https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/07/17/safety-lapses-at-los-alamos-national-laboratory/">worker safety procedures</a>. </p>
<p>As Nolan’s film recounts, J. Robert Oppenheimer and many other Manhattan Project scientists had <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-05/features/once-more-into-breach-physicists-mobilize-again-counter-nuclear-threat">deep concerns</a> about how their work might create unprecedented dangers. Looking at the legacies of the Trinity test, I wonder whether any of them imagined the scale and scope of those outcomes.</p>
<p><em>This is an update of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cold-wars-toxic-legacy-costly-dangerous-cleanups-at-atomic-bomb-production-sites-90378">article</a> originally published March 5, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210262/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Kinsella served with the citizen advisory board for the Hanford site cleanup from 2000-2005, representing the public interest group Hanford Watch. </span></em></p>Nuclear weapons production and testing contaminated many sites across the US and exposed people unknowingly to radiation and toxic materials. Some have gone uncompensated for decades.William J. Kinsella, Professor Emeritus of Communication, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2009022023-03-05T19:20:09Z2023-03-05T19:20:09ZNo, the Fukushima water release is not going to kill the Pacific Ocean<p>Japanese authorities are preparing to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. This will relieve pressure on more than 1,000 storage tanks, creating much-needed space for other vital remediation works. But the plan has attracted controversy. </p>
<p>At first glance, releasing radioactive water into the ocean does sound like a terrible idea. <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/blog/6540/a-quick-read-on-the-radioactive-water-in-fukushima-what-makes-it-different/">Greenpeace</a> feared the radioactivity released <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54658379">might change human DNA</a>, <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272148.shtml">China</a> and <a href="https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210825001034">South Korea</a> expressed disquiet, while <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues">Pacific Island nations</a> were concerned about further nuclear contamination of the Blue Pacific. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106296">One academic publication</a> claimed the total global social welfare cost could exceed US$200 billion. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/fukushima-japan-insists-release-of-treated-water-is-safe-nuclear-disaster">Japanese government</a>, the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge">IAEA</a>) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-to-release-wastewater-an-expert-explains-why-this-could-be-the-best-option-198173">independent scientists</a> have declared the planned release to be reasonable and safe. </p>
<p>Based on our collective professional experience in nuclear science and nuclear power, we have reached the same conclusion. Our assessment is based on the type of radioactivity to be released, the amount of radioactivity already present in the ocean, and the high level of independent oversight from the IAEA. </p>
<h2>How much water is there, and what’s in it?</h2>
<p>The storage tanks at Fukushima contain <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/alps01/index-e.html">1.3 million tonnes of water</a>, equivalent to around 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. </p>
<p>Contaminated water is produced daily by ongoing reactor cooling. Contaminated groundwater also collects in the basements of the damaged reactor buildings. </p>
<p>The water is being cleaned by a technology called ALPS, or Advanced Liquid Processing System. This removes the vast majority of the problematic elements. </p>
<p>The ALPS treatment can be repeated until concentrations are below regulatory limits. Independent monitoring by the IAEA will ensure all requirements are met before discharge. </p>
<p>The main radioactive contaminant remaining after treatment is tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen (H) that is difficult to remove from water (H₂O). There is no technology to remove trace levels of tritium from this volume of water.</p>
<p>Tritium has a half-life of <a href="http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/tritium.cfm">12.3 years</a>, meaning 100 years passes before the radioactivity is negligible. It is unrealistic to store the water for such a long time as the volumes are too great. Extended storage also increases the risk of accidental uncontrolled release. </p>
<p>Like all radioactive elements, international standards exist for safe levels of tritium. For liquids, these are measured in Bq per litre, where one Bq (<a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Becquerel">becquerel</a>) is defined as one radioactive decay per second. At the point of release, the Japanese authorities have chosen a conservative concentration limit of <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">1,500Bq per litre</a>, seven times smaller than the World Health Organization’s recommended limit of <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44584/9789241548151_eng.pdf">10,000Bq per litre</a> for drinking water. </p>
<h2>Why is it acceptable to release tritium into the ocean?</h2>
<p>One surprising thing about radiation is how common it is. Almost everything is radioactive to some degree, including air, water, plants, basements and granite benchtops. Even a long-haul airline flight supplies a few chest X-rays worth of radiation to everyone on board.</p>
<p>In the case of tritium, natural processes in the atmosphere generate <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">50-70</a> <a href="https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html">peta-becquerels (PBq)</a> of tritium every year. This number is difficult to grasp, so it’s helpful to think of it as grams of pure tritium. Using the conversion factor of 1PBq = 2.79g, we see that <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">150-200g</a> of tritium is created naturally each year.</p>
<p>Looking at the Pacific Ocean, around 8.4kg (<a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02336283">3,000PBq</a>) of tritium is already in the water.
By comparison, the total amount of tritium in the Fukushima wastewater is vastly smaller, at around 3g (<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abc1507">1PBq</a>).</p>
<p>Japanese authorities are not planning to release the water all at once. Instead, just 0.06g (<a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq</a>) of tritium is scheduled for release each year. Compared with the radioactivity already present in the Pacific, the planned annual release is a literal drop in the ocean.</p>
<p>The current levels of tritium radioactivity in the Pacific are not of concern, and so the small amount to be added by the Fukushima water won’t cause any harm. </p>
<p>What’s more, tritium only makes a tiny contribution to the total radioactivity of the oceans. Ocean radioactivity is mostly due to potassium, an element <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/potassium">essential for life</a> and present in all cells. In the Pacific Ocean there is <a href="http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Radionuclides-in-the-Ocean.html">7.4 million PBq</a> of radioactivity from potassium, more than 1,000 times greater than the amount due to tritium.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-how-might-radioactive-waste-water-affect-the-environment-159483">Nuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How do other countries manage the discharge of tritium?</h2>
<p>All nuclear power plants produce some tritium, which is routinely discharged into the ocean and other waterways. The amount generated depends on the type of reactor. </p>
<p>Boiling water reactors, such as at Fukushima, produce relatively low quantities. When Fukushima was operating, the tritium discharge limit was set at <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq per year</a>. That figure is <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">far below</a> a level that could cause harm, but is reasonably achievable for this type of power plant. </p>
<p>In contrast, the UK Heysham nuclear power plant has a limit of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/932885/Radioactivity_in_food_and_the_environment_2019_RIFE_25.pdf">1300TBq per year</a> because this type of gas-cooled reactor produces a lot of tritium. Heysham has been discharging tritium for 40 years without harm to people or the environment.</p>
<p>Annual tritium discharge at <a href="https://japan-forward.com/china-and-south-korea-too-release-nuclear-plant-wastewater-into-the-oceans/">nearby nuclear power plants</a> far exceeds what is proposed for Fukushima. The Fuqing plant in China discharged 52TBq in 2020, while the Kori plant in South Korea discharged 50TBq in 2018. </p>
<p>Each of these power plants releases more than twice the amount to be released from Fukushima.</p>
<h2>Are there other reasons for not releasing the water?</h2>
<p>Objections to the planned release have been the subject of widespread media coverage. <a href="https://time.com/6250415/fukushima-nuclear-waste-pacific-islands/">TIME</a> magazine recently explained how Pacific Island nations have been grappling for decades with the legacy of Cold War nuclear testing. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/26/if-its-safe-dump-it-in-tokyo-we-in-the-pacific-dont-want-japans-nuclear-wastewater">The Guardian</a> ran an opinion piece from Pacific activists, who argued if the waste was safe, then “dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free”.</p>
<p>But the Pacific has always contained radioactivity, from potassium in particular. The extra radioactivity to be added from the Fukushima water will make the most miniscule of differences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Striking a different tone, The Pacific Island Forum <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues/">commissioned a panel of experts</a> to provide independent technical advice and guidance, and help address concerns on the wastewater. The panel was critical of the quantity and quality of data from the Japanese authorities, and advised that <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/11/16/release-expert-advises-deferment-on-japan-fukushima-discharge-dates/">Japan should defer</a> the impending discharge.</p>
<p>While we are sympathetic to the view that the scientific data could be improved, our assessment is the panel is unfairly critical of ocean release. </p>
<p>The main thing missing from the <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annex-4-Expert-Panel-Memorandum-Summarizing-Our-Views-...-2022-08-11.pdf">report</a> is a sense of perspective. The public seminar from the expert panel, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzTjCgWlFRU">available on YouTube</a>, presents only a portion of the context we provide above. Existing tritium in the ocean isn’t discussed, and the dominance of potassium is glossed over. </p>
<p>The most reasonable comments regard the performance of ALPS. This is largely in the context of strontium-90 and cesium-137, both of which are legitimate isotopes of concern. </p>
<p>However, the panel implies that the authorities don’t know what is in the tanks, and that ALPS doesn’t work properly. There actually is a lot of public information on both topics. Perhaps it could be repackaged in a clearer way for others to understand. But the inferences made by the panel give the wrong impression. </p>
<p>The most important thing the panel overlooks is that the contaminated water can be repeatedly passed through ALPS until it is safe for release. For some tanks a single pass will suffice, while for others additional cycles are required.</p>
<h2>The big picture</h2>
<p>The earthquake was the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222972/">primary environmental disaster</a>, and the planet will be dealing with the consequences for decades. In our view, the release of Fukushima wastewater does not add to the disaster.</p>
<p>It’s easy to understand why people are concerned about the prospect of radioactive liquid waste being released into the ocean. But the water is not dangerous. The nastiest elements have been removed, and what remains is modest compared with natural radioactivity.</p>
<p>We hope science will prevail and Japan will be allowed to continue the recovery process. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/radioactive-waste-isnt-going-away-weve-found-a-new-way-to-trap-it-in-minerals-for-long-term-storage-200255">Radioactive waste isn't going away. We've found a new way to trap it in minerals for long-term storage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200902/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Marks is an Associate Professor in the Physics department at Curtin University. In 1996/97 he worked at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology (ANSTO) in the reactor division. He has received grants from the Australian Research Council, ANSTO and Los Alamos National Laboratory to study radiation processes in solids.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Kennedy is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Sydney. He is a past president of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. He is a long time user of advanced nuclear facilities in Europe, USA and Japan.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Irwin is a Chartered Engineer and Honorary Associate Professor ANU with extensive experience of reactor operations in the UK and Australia. Tony was the first Reactor Manager for ANSTO's OPAL reactor.</span></em></p>An independent assessment of Japan’s plan to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, finds it safe and reasonable.Nigel Marks, Associate Professor of Physics, Curtin UniversityBrendan Kennedy, Professor of Chemistry, University of SydneyTony Irwin, Honorary Associate Professor, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1981732023-01-23T06:06:21Z2023-01-23T06:06:21ZFukushima to release wastewater – an expert explains why this could be the best option<p>Over ten years ago, a tsunami <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx">triggered a disaster</a> at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on Japan’s east coast. After the accident, large amounts of radioactivity contaminated the ocean leading to the imposition of a <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-3218-0_18">marine exclusion zone and huge reputational damage</a> to the regional fishing industry. </p>
<p>Huge volumes of contaminated water have accumulated on the site since. Water was needed to cool the damaged reactors and groundwater that became contaminated as it infiltrated the site had to be pumped out and stored. Over 1,000 tanks have been built on site to store <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/alps01/index-e.html#amount">over a million tonnes</a> of radioactive water.</p>
<p>But the site is running out of storage space and the tanks could leak, particularly in the event of an earthquake or a typhoon. So the Japanese authorities have given the site permission to release the stored radioactive water through a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean.</p>
<p>As an environmental scientist, I have worked on the impacts of radioactive pollutants in the environment for more than 30 years. I think that releasing the wastewater is the best option.</p>
<h2>Contaminated water</h2>
<p>Before it is stored, the wastewater produced at Fukushima is treated to remove almost all of the radioactive elements. These include <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cobalt-60">cobalt 60</a>, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-strontium-90">strontium 90</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-cesium-137">caesium 137</a>. But <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/tritium">tritium</a> – a radioactive form of hydrogen – is left behind.</p>
<p>When one of the hydrogen atoms in water is replaced by tritium, it forms radioactive tritiated water. Tritiated water is chemically identical to normal water, which makes separating it from wastewater expensive, energy intensive and time consuming. A <a href="https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdf">review</a> of tritium separation technologies in 2020 found that they are unable to process the huge volumes of water required.</p>
<p>But as radioactive elements go, tritium is relatively benign and its existence as tritiated water reduces its environmental impact. Chemically identical to normal water, tritiated water passes through organisms like water does and so does not strongly accumulate in the bodies of living things.</p>
<p>Tritiated water has a <a href="https://hal-normandie-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02433412/file/Fi%C3%A9vet_2013_Transfer%20of%20tritium%20released%20into%20the%20marine%20environment%20by%20French%20nuclear%20facilities%20bordering%20the%20English%20Channel.pdf">bioaccumulation factor of about one</a>. This means exposed animals would have roughly the same concentration of tritium in their bodies as the surrounding water.</p>
<p>By comparison, radioactive caesium 137, released in large quantities after Fukushima and from the UK’s Sellafield nuclear site in the 1960s and 70s, has a bioaccumulation factor in marine environments of <a href="https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS422_web.pdf">roughly 100</a>. Animals tend to have around 100 times more radiocaesium than in the surrounding water because caesium magnifies up the food chain. </p>
<h2>Low radiation dose</h2>
<p>When tritium decays, it gives off a beta particle (a fast-moving electron that can damage DNA if ingested). But tritium’s beta particle is not very energetic. A person would need to ingest a lot of it to be given a significant radiation dose.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization’s <a href="https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/water-safety-and-quality/dwq-guidelines-4/gdwq4-with-add1-chap9.pdf?sfvrsn=6fc78cae_3">drinking water standard</a> for tritium is 10,000 Becquerels (Bq) per litre. This is several times higher than the planned concentration of the discharge water at Fukushima.</p>
<p>The difficulty of separating tritium from wastewater and its limited environmental impact is the reason nuclear facilities around the world have been releasing it into the sea for decades. The Fukushima Daiichi site is planning to release about 1 Petabecquerel (PBq – 1 with 15 zeros after it) of tritium at a rate of <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">0.022 PBq per year</a>.</p>
<p>This sounds like a huge number but globally, <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">50-70 PBq of tritium</a> is produced naturally in our atmosphere by cosmic rays each year. While annually, the Cap de la Hague nuclear fuel reprocessing site in northern France releases roughly <a href="https://hal-normandie-univ.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02433412/file/Fi%C3%A9vet_2013_Transfer%20of%20tritium%20released%20into%20the%20marine%20environment%20by%20French%20nuclear%20facilities%20bordering%20the%20English%20Channel.pdf">10 PBq</a> of tritium into the English Channel.</p>
<p>Significantly higher rates of release from Cap de la Hague than planned at Fukushima have <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/technical-publications/Documents/IRSN_BR%202015-2017_V1_EN_web.pdf">shown no evidence</a> of significant environmental impacts and doses to people are low. </p>
<h2>Safe release</h2>
<p>But the release of radioactive water must be done properly.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">Japanese studies</a> estimate that the wastewater will be diluted from hundreds of thousands of Bq per litre of tritium in the storage tanks to 1,500 Bq per litre in discharge water. <a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/report_1_review_mission_to_tepco_and_meti.pdf">Diluting the wastewater</a> before it is released will reduce the radiation dose to people. </p>
<p>The radiation dose to people is measured in sieverts, or millionths of sieverts (microsieverts), where a dose of 1,000 microsieverts represents a one in 25,000 chance of dying early from cancer. The <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/hd/newsroom/press/archives/2021/pdf/211117e0102.pdf">maximum estimated dose</a> from Fukushima’s discharged water will be 3.9 microsieverts per year. This is much lower than the 2,400 microsieverts people receive from natural radiation on average each year. </p>
<p>The Japanese authorities must also ensure that there are not significant amounts of “organically bound tritium” in the released water. This is where a tritium atom replaces ordinary hydrogen in an organic molecule. The organic molecules containing tritium can then be absorbed in to sediments and ingested by marine organisms</p>
<p>In the mid-1990s, organic molecules containing tritium were released from the Nycomed-Amersham pharmaceuticals plant in Cardiff Bay, Wales. The release led to bioaccumulation factors as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X0100039X?casa_token=rU1zVGEdYYMAAAAA:rO5YwPfC1BWdCjRSA2hjh38Vm0LPcBd79Gg42kaVhE76hroYTnj7zEaLPRyiXmn32TGX4yqK">high as 10,000</a>.</p>
<p>Treatment for other more dangerous radioactive elements also tends to <a href="https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/140424/140424_02_008.pdf">leave small amounts</a> of these elements in the wastewater. The wastewater stored at Fukushima will be <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/oceanrelease/index-e.html">re-treated</a> to make sure levels of these elements are low enough to be safe for discharge.</p>
<p>On the grand scale of the environmental problems we face, the release of wastewater from Fukushima is a relatively minor one. But it is likely to do more reputational damage to Fukushima’s beleaguered fishing industry. This will not be helped by the political and media furore that’s likely to surround new releases of radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198173/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In 2008-2013, The University of Portsmouth was paid a total of about £25k for Jim Smith's consultancy for a range of clients including Horizon Nuclear Power and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency for risk assessment work. In 2012-17 he was awarded a grant from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, partly funded by Radioactive Waste Management, for research at Chernobyl. He currently has no relevant external funding and does not do paid external consultancy.</span></em></p>Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is set to release radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean – but the cause for concern is minimal.Jim Smith, Professor of Environmental Science, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1894292022-08-26T12:19:56Z2022-08-26T12:19:56ZUN nuclear agency calls for protection zone around imperiled Ukrainian power plant – a safety expert explains why that could be crucial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483071/original/file-20220906-22-a9szl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C52%2C1022%2C714&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Damage at the Zaporizhzhya facility.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/52328919198/">International Atomic Energy Agency</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog has <a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-nations-government-and-politics-d65a057bbb9dc1e59171fdad1fd3c3f0?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_1">called on Russia and Ukraine</a> to set up a “safety and security protection zone” around the embattled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar. The plea, made on Sept. 6, 2022, by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), comes amid mounting concern that the facility – Europe’s largest nuclear power plant – is vulnerable to nearby fighting, and that damage to the site could cause a catastrophic accident.</em></p>
<p><em>Shelling has already <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-93-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">damaged power and communication lines to the plant</a>, prompting <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-nuclear-plant-escapes-meltdown-zelenskiy-says-moscow-kyiv-trade-blame-2022-08-25/">fears for the plant’s safety</a> and evoking painful memories in a country still scarred by the world’s worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in 1986.</em> </p>
<p><em>In addition, Russian authorities have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/revealed-russian-plan-to-disconnect-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-from-grid">developed plans to disconnect the plant</a> from Ukraine’s power grid – in the event of damage to the plant, according to the Russians, as a prelude to switching the plant to the grid in Russian-occupied territory, according to the Ukrainians. Disconnecting the plant from the grid is a risky operation.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation asked <a href="https://sites.usc.edu/meshkati/">Najmedin Meshkati</a>, a professor and <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/thirty-three-years-catastrophe-chernobyl-universal-lesson-global-nuclear-power-industry">nuclear safety expert</a> at the University of Southern California, to explain the risks of warfare taking place in and around nuclear power plants.</em></p>
<h2>How safe was the Zaporizhzhia power plant before the Russian attack?</h2>
<p>The facility at Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear plant in Europe and one of the largest in the world. It has six <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html">pressurized water reactors</a>, which use water to both sustain the fission reaction and cool the reactor. These differ from the <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">RBMK</a> reactors at Chernobyl, which used graphite instead of water to sustain the fission reaction. RBMK reactors are not seen as very safe, and there are <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">only eight remaining in use</a> in the world, all in Russia.</p>
<p>The reactors at Zaporizhzhia are of moderately good design, and the plant has a decent safety record, with a good operating background.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qthg5xE196w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant uses pressurized water reactors.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ukrainian authorities tried to keep the war away from the site by asking Russia to observe a 30-kilometer (nearly 19-mile) safety buffer. But Russian troops surrounded the facility and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-everything-you-need-to-know">seized it in March</a>.</p>
<h2>What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone?</h2>
<p>Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars.</p>
<p>The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled. If a shell hit the plant’s <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html">spent fuel pool</a> – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool isn’t in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable.</p>
<p>Containment buildings, which house nuclear reactors, are also not protected against deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are not designed to withstand a huge explosion.</p>
<p>As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the atmosphere, which would make it difficult to send in first responders to contain any resulting fire. It could be another Chernobyl.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A soldier stands in the foreground as a half dozen people in hazmat suits and gas masks stand near stretchers outside a large tent" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481180/original/file-20220825-26-qlt1zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ukrainian Emergency Ministry personnel conducted a drill in the city of Zaporizhzhia on Aug. 17, 2022, to prepare for a possible radiation leak from the nuclear power plant near the city.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-emergency-ministry-rescuers-attend-an-exercise-in-news-photo/1242554458">Photo by Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the concerns going forward?</h2>
<p>The safety problems I see are twofold:</p>
<p><strong>1) Human error</strong></p>
<p>The workers at the facility are working under incredible stress, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/world/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant.html">reportedly at gunpoint</a>. Stress increases the chance of error and poor performance.</p>
<p>There is a human element in running a nuclear power plant – operators are the first and last layers of defense for the facility and the public. They are the first people to detect any anomaly and to stop any incident. Or if there’s an accident, they will be the first to heroically try to contain it.</p>
<p>This concern was highlighted in the International Atomic Energy Agency report, which noted that the Ukrainian staff at the plant were working under “constant high stress and pressure” – something that could have consequences for nuclear safety.</p>
<p><strong>2) Power failure</strong></p>
<p>The second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime.</p>
<p>Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the reactor and bring it to what is called a <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-cold-shutdown.html">cold shutdown</a>. Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn’t overheat.</p>
<p>Spent fuel pools also need constant water circulation to keep them cool, and they need cooling for several years before they can be put in dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear-powers-greatest-challenge-155541">Fukushima disaster</a> in Japan was the emergency generators intended to replace lost off-site power got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that, you get “<a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-station-blackout/">station blackout</a>” – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hundreds of square openings lie at the bottom of a large pool of water in an industrial building" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spent nuclear fuel rods are stored at the bottom of this pool, which requires constant circulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/picture-shows-the-cooling-pool-of-the-switched-off-unit-1-news-photo/524200126">Guillaume Souvant/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium cladding can create hydrogen bubbles. If you can’t vent these bubbles, they will explode, spreading radiation.</p>
<p>If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for the generators themselves. </p>
<p>My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict because power line pylons may come down under shelling, or gas power plants might get damaged and cease to operate. And though Ukrainian intelligence services <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russia-plans-disconnect-nuclear-plants-blocks-grid-2022-08-19/">claim that the Russians intend to stockpile diesel fuel</a> to keep these emergency generators going, it is unlikely that Russian troops will have excess fuel given their need to fuel their own vehicles.</p>
<h2>How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants?</h2>
<p>One of the overarching concerns about the effects of war on nuclear plants is that war degrades <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253947/">safety culture</a>, which is crucial in running a plant. I believe that safety culture is analogous to the human body’s immune system, which protects against pathogens and diseases. Safety culture is pervasive and has a widespread impact. “It can affect all elements in a system for good or ill,” <a href="https://www.safetymattersblog.com/2014/11/a-life-in-error-by-james-reason.html">according to</a> <a href="https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/jim-reason-FBA/">psychologist James Reason</a>.</p>
<p>The tragic situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant violates every universally accepted tenet of <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1500/ML15007A487.pdf">healthy nuclear safety culture</a>, especially the maintenance of an environment where personnel can raise safety concerns.</p>
<p>War adversely affects safety culture in a number of ways. Operators are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare parts. </p>
<p>Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In war, everything is harder.</p>
<h2>So what can be done to better protect Ukraine’s nuclear power plants?</h2>
<p>The only solution is declaring a demilitarized zone around nuclear plants, similar to the the protection zone urged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Russia has previously rejected United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’ <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15003.doc.htm">plea for declaring a demilitarized zone around the plant</a>. </p>
<p>I believe an optimal though not ideal solution is to bring the two operating reactors to a cold shutdown before any further loss of off-site power and risk of station blackout, store more fuel for emergency diesel generators at different locations at the plant site, and keep only a skeleton caretaker staff to look after the spent fuel pools.</p>
<p>Admittedly, this is only a stopgap measure. In parallel with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s effort under the leadership of its Director, General Rafael Mariano Grossi, I believe that the U.N. Security Council should immediately empower a special commission to mediate between the warring parties. It could be modeled after the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Monitoring-Verification-and-Inspection-Commission">United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission</a> in 2000, and appoint a prominent, senior international statesman as its head. </p>
<p>I believe the person should be of the caliber and in the mold of the legendary former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, <a href="https://worldleaders.columbia.edu/directory/hans-blix">Hans Blix</a> of Sweden. Blix led the agency at the time of the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and commands respect in today’s Russia and Ukraine.</p>
<p>War, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of nuclear safety. This is an unprecedented and volatile situation. Only through active, pragmatic <a href="https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/default/files/engineering_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf">engineering and nuclear diplomacy</a> can an amenable and lasting solution to this vexing problem be found.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/russian-troops-fought-for-control-of-a-nuclear-power-plant-in-ukraine-a-safety-expert-explains-how-warfare-and-nuclear-power-are-a-volatile-combination-178588">an article</a> originally published on March 4, 2022.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Najmedin Meshkati received research funding from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in mid-1990s.</span></em></p>Artillery shelling, stressed-out technicians and power supply disruptions increase the chances of catastrophe at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest.Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1785882022-03-04T23:36:53Z2022-03-04T23:36:53ZRussian troops fought for control of a nuclear power plant in Ukraine – a safety expert explains how warfare and nuclear power are a volatile combination<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450124/original/file-20220304-23-pfhpx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C3442%2C2282&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, points to the training facility hit by Russian artillery at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AustriaNuclearRussiaUkraineWar/86fb83c01e9149b3a9bb7c09dccc0157/photo">AP Photo/Lisa Leutner</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Russian forces have taken control of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-everything-you-need-to-know">shelling the Zaporizhzhia facility</a> in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar.</em></p>
<p><em>The overnight assault caused a blaze at the facility, prompting fears over the safety of the plant and evoking painful memories in a country still scarred by the world’s worst nuclear accident, at Chernobyl in 1986. The site of that disaster is <a href="https://theconversation.com/military-action-in-radioactive-chernobyl-could-be-dangerous-for-people-and-the-environment-177992">also under Russian control</a> as of Feb. 24, 2022.</em> </p>
<p><em>On March 4, Ukrainian authorities <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-11-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine">reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency</a> that the fire at Zaporizhzhia had been extinguished and that Ukrainian employees were reportedly operating the plant under Russian orders. But safety concerns remain.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation asked <a href="https://sites.usc.edu/meshkati/">Najmedin Meshkati</a>, a professor and <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/thirty-three-years-catastrophe-chernobyl-universal-lesson-global-nuclear-power-industry">nuclear safety expert</a> at the University of Southern California, to explain the risks of warfare taking place in and around nuclear power plants.</em></p>
<h2>How safe was the Zaporizhzhia power plant before the Russian attack?</h2>
<p>The facility at Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear plant in Europe, and one of the largest in the world. It has six <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html">pressurized water reactors</a>, which use water to both sustain the fission reaction and cool the reactor. These differ from the <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny</a> reactors at Chernobyl, which used graphite instead of water to sustain the fission reaction. RBMK reactors are not seen as very safe, and there are <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">only eight remaining in use</a> in the world, all in Russia.</p>
<p>The reactors at Zaporizhzhia are of moderately good design. And the plant has a decent safety record, with a good operating background.</p>
<p>Ukraine authorities tried to keep the war away from the site by asking Russia to observe a 30-kilometer safety buffer. But Russian troops surrounded the facility and then seized it.</p>
<h2>What are the risks to a nuclear plant in a conflict zone?</h2>
<p>Nuclear power plants are built for peacetime operations, not wars.</p>
<p>The worst thing that could happen is if a site is deliberately or accidentally shelled and the containment building – which houses the nuclear reactor – is hit. These containment buildings are not designed or built for deliberate shelling. They are built to withstand a minor internal explosion of, say, a pressurized water pipe. But they are not designed to withstand a huge explosion.</p>
<p>It is not known whether the Russian forces deliberately shelled the Zaporizhzhia plant. It may have been inadvertent, caused by a stray missile. But we do know they wanted to capture the plant.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kK7xG_Q0Tkg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Tracer rounds and flames can be seen in this video of the fight for control of the nuclear power plant.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If a shell hit the plant’s <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html">spent fuel pool</a> – which contains the still-radioactive spent fuel – or if fire spread to the spent fuel pool, it could release radiation. This spent fuel pool isn’t in the containment building, and as such is more vulnerable.</p>
<p>As to the reactors in the containment building, it depends on the weapons being used. The worst-case scenario is that a bunker-buster missile breaches the containment dome – consisting of a thick shell of reinforced concrete on top of the reactor – and explodes. That would badly damage the nuclear reactor and release radiation into the atmosphere. And because of any resulting fire, sending in firefighters would be difficult. It could be another Chernobyl.</p>
<h2>What are the concerns going forward?</h2>
<p>The biggest worry was not the fire at the facility. That did not affect the containment buildings and has been extinguished. </p>
<p>The safety problems I see now are twofold:</p>
<p><strong>1) Human error</strong></p>
<p>The workers at the facility are now working under incredible stress, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-04-22/h_1f73598a8edc48dcd10cea81c3c37be5">reportedly at gunpoint</a>. Stress increases the chance of error and poor performance.</p>
<p>One concern is that the workers will not be allowed to change shifts, meaning longer hours and tiredness. We know that a few days ago at Chernobyl, after the Russians took control of the site, they <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-chief-warns-over-pressure-on-Ukraine-nuclear">did not allow employees</a> – who usually work in three shifts – to swap out. Instead, they took some workers hostage and didn’t allow the other workers to attend their shifts.</p>
<p>At Zaporizhzhia we may see the same.</p>
<p>There is a human element in running a nuclear power plant – operators are the first and last layers of defense for the facility and the public. They are the first people to detect any anomaly and to stop any incident. Or if there’s an accident, they will be the first to heroically try to contain it. </p>
<p><strong>2) Power failure</strong></p>
<p>The second problem is that the nuclear plant needs constant electricity, and that is harder to maintain in wartime.</p>
<p>Even if you shut down the reactors, the plant will need off-site power to run the huge cooling system to remove the residual heat in the reactor and bring it to what is called a “cold shutdown.” Water circulation is always needed to make sure the spent fuel doesn’t overheat.</p>
<p>Spent fuel pools also need constant circulation of water to keep them cool. And they need cooling for several years before being put in dry casks. One of the problems in the 2011 <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear-powers-greatest-challenge-155541">Fukushima disaster</a> in Japan was the emergency generators, which replaced lost off-site power, got inundated with water and failed. In situations like that you get “<a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-station-blackout/">station blackout</a>” – and that is one of the worst things that could happen. It means no electricity to run the cooling system. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hundreds of square openings lie at the bottom of a large pool of water in an industrial building" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450128/original/file-20220304-21-hirerv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spent nuclear fuel rods are stored at the bottom of this pool, which requires constant circulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/picture-shows-the-cooling-pool-of-the-switched-off-unit-1-news-photo/524200126">Guillaume Souvant/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In that circumstance, the spent fuel overheats and its zirconium cladding can cause hydrogen bubbles. If you can’t vent these bubbles they will explode, spreading radiation.</p>
<p>If there is a loss of outside power, operators will have to rely on emergency generators. But emergency generators are huge machines – finicky, unreliable gas guzzlers. And you still need cooling waters for the generators themselves. </p>
<p>My biggest worry is that Ukraine suffers from a sustained power grid failure. The likelihood of this increases during a conflict, because pylons may come down under shelling or gas power plants might get damaged and cease to operate. And it is unlikely that Russian troops themselves will have fuel to keep these emergency generators going – they <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60596629">don’t seem to have enough fuel</a> to run their own personnel carriers.</p>
<h2>How else does a war affect the safety of nuclear plants?</h2>
<p>One of the overarching concerns is that war degrades <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253947/">safety culture</a>, which is crucial in running a plant. I believe that safety culture is analogous to the human body’s immune system, which protects against pathogens and diseases; and because of the pervasive nature of safety culture and its widespread impact, according to <a href="https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/jim-reason-FBA/">psychologist James Reason</a>, “<a href="https://www.safetymattersblog.com/2014/11/a-life-in-error-by-james-reason.html">it can affect all elements in a system for good or ill</a>.”</p>
<p>It is incumbent upon the leadership of the plant to strive for immunizing, protecting, maintaining and nurturing the healthy safety culture of the nuclear plant.</p>
<p>War adversely affects the safety culture in a number of ways. Operators are stressed and fatigued and may be scared to death to speak out if something is going wrong. Then there is the maintenance of a plant, which may be compromised by lack of staff or unavailability of spare parts. Governance, regulation and oversight – all crucial for the safe running of a nuclear industry – are also disrupted, as is local infrastructure, such as the capability of local firefighters. In normal times you might have been able to extinguish the fire at Zaporizhzhia in five minutes. But in war, everything is harder.</p>
<h2>So what can be done to better protect Ukraine’s nuclear power plants?</h2>
<p>This is an unprecedented and volatile situation. The only solution is a no-fight zone around nuclear plants. War, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of nuclear safety.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-150ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Najmedin Meshkati received research funding from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC in mid-1990s.</span></em></p>The world held its collective breath as Russian troops battled Ukrainian forces at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The battle is over and no radiation escaped, but the danger is far from over.Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1752672022-02-11T13:38:53Z2022-02-11T13:38:53ZWe’re all radioactive – so let’s stop being afraid of it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445935/original/file-20220211-23-1fgmdap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5751%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Drink up: carrot juice contains a small amount of radioactive potassium.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Africa Studio / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many people are frightened of radiation, thinking of it as an invisible, man-made and deadly force, and this fear often underpins opposition to nuclear power. In fact, most radiation is natural and life on Earth wouldn’t be possible without it. </p>
<p>In nuclear power and nuclear medicine we’ve simply harnessed radiation for our own use, just as we harness fire or the medical properties of plants, both of which also have the power to harm. Unlike some toxins found in nature, humans have evolved to live with exposure to low doses of radiation and only relatively high doses are harmful. A good analogy for this is paracetamol – one tablet can cure your headache, but if you take a whole box in one go it can kill you. </p>
<p>The Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years ago, generated radiation in the form of atoms known as primordial radionuclides (primordial meaning from the beginning of time). These now are part of everything in the universe. Some have very long physical half-lives, a measure of how long it takes for half of their radioactivity to decay away: for one radioactive form of thorium it is 14 billion years, for one of uranium 4.5 billion and one of potassium 1.3 billion. </p>
<p>Primordial radionuclides are still present in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780081027028/an-introduction-to-nuclear-waste-immobilisation">rocks, minerals and soils today</a>. Their decay is a source of heat in the Earth’s interior, turning its molten iron core into a convecting dynamo that maintains a magnetic field strong enough to shield us from cosmic radiation which would otherwise eliminate life on Earth. Without this radioactivity, the Earth would have gradually cooled to become a dead, rocky globe with a cold, iron ball at the core and life would not exist.</p>
<p>Radiation from space interacts with elements in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and some surface minerals to produce new <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14651-0_21">“cosmogenic” radionuclides</a> including forms of hydrogen, carbon, aluminium and other well-known elements. Most decay quickly, except for one radioactive form of carbon whose 5,700-year half-life enables archaeologists to use it for <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/radiocarbon-dating-1839">radiocarbon dating</a>.</p>
<p>Primordial and cosmogenic radionuclides are the source of most of the radiation that surrounds us. Radiation is taken up from the soil by plants and occurs in food such as bananas, beans, carrots, potatoes, peanuts and brazil nuts. Beer for instance contains a radioactive form of potassium, but only about a tenth of that found in <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/common-naturally-radioactive-foods-607456">carrot juice</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Nuts" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brazil nuts are the most radioactive common food.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Africa / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Radionuclides from food largely pass through our bodies but some remain for periods of time (their biological half-life is the time for our bodies to remove them). That same radioactive form of potassium emits high energy gamma rays as it decays which escape the human body, ensuring that we are all slightly radioactive.</p>
<h2>Living with radioactivity</h2>
<p>Historically, we have been oblivious to the presence of radioactivity in our environment but our bodies naturally evolved to live with it. Our cells have developed protective mechanisms that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4834965">stimulate DNA repair in response to damage by radiation</a>.</p>
<p>Natural radioactivity was first discovered by French scientist Henri Becquerel in 1896. The first artificial radioactive materials were produced by Marie and Pierre Curie in the 1930s, and have since been used in science, industry, agriculture and medicine.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Black and white photo of bearded old man" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Becquerel in the lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Becquerel_in_the_lab.jpg">unknown / wiki</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, radiation therapy is still one of the most important methods for treatment of cancer. To increase the potency of therapeutic radiation, researchers are currently trying to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31649878/">modify cancer cells</a> to make them less able to repair themselves.</p>
<p>We use radioactive material for both diagnosis and treatment in “nuclear medicine”. Patients are injected with specific radionuclides depending on where in the body the treatment or diagnosis is needed. Radioiodine, for example, collects in the thyroid gland, whereas radium accumulates chiefly in the bones. The emitted radiation is used to diagnose cancerous tumours. Radionuclides are also used to treat cancers by targeting their emitted radiation on a tumour.</p>
<p>The most common medical radioisotope is 99mTc (technetium), which is used in 30 million procedures each year worldwide. Like many other medical isotopes, it is manmade, derived from a parent radionuclide that itself is created from fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor.</p>
<h2>Radiation fear could boost fossil fuels</h2>
<p>Despite the benefits that nuclear reactors offer us, people fear the radiation they create either due to nuclear waste, or accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. But very few people have died due to nuclear power generation or accidents in comparison to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy">other primary energy sources</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing death rates from energy production per TWh" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Despite high-profile accidents, nuclear is responsible for a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by fossil fuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy">Our World In Data</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We worry that fear of radiation is harming climate mitigation strategies. For instance, Germany currently generates about a quarter of its electricity from coal, but considers nuclear dangerous and is closing down its remaining <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/germany-calls-nuclear-power-dangerous-rejects-eu-plan">nuclear power stations</a>. </p>
<p>But modern reactors create minimal waste. This waste, along with legacy wastes from old reactors, can be immobilised in cement and glass and disposed of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916682/A_Permanent_Solution_for_Higher_-_Activity_Radioactive_Waste.pdf">deep underground</a>. Radioactive waste also generates no carbon dioxide, unlike coal, gas or oil.</p>
<p>We now have the understanding to harness radiation safely and use it to our and our planet’s benefit. By fearing it too much and rejecting nuclear power as a primary energy source, we risk relying on fossil fuels for longer. This – not radiation – is what puts us and the planet in the greatest danger.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175267/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Lee currently receives funding from the Welsh Government and the European Regional Development Fund for his Ser Cymru Chair at Bangor University. He has previously received BNFL, EPSRC and NDA funding for research into radioactive wasteforms and EPSRC for a Centre for Doctoral Training in Nuclear Energy. He was previously Deputy Chair of the UK Government advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and a member of its Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Thomas currently receives funding from the National Cancer Institute of the US and the Sasakawa Health Foundation of Japan to support the Chernobyl Tissue Bank. She is also a member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.</span></em></p>Experts in nuclear power and nuclear medicine worry that fears of radiation will keep us relying on fossil fuels for longer.Bill Lee, Ser Cymru Professor of Materials in Extreme Environments, Bangor UniversityGerry Thomas, Chair in Molecular Pathology, Imperial College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1740312022-01-19T17:18:05Z2022-01-19T17:18:05ZGroundwater — not ice sheets — is the largest source of water on land and most of it is ancient<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441396/original/file-20220118-13-1swo8gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=70%2C62%2C5157%2C3417&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Groundwater is used for irrigation and drinking water, but those wells are rarely more than one kilometre deep. A huge volume of salty water exists as much as 10 kilometres below the Earth's surface.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Outside of the world’s oceans, groundwater is one of the largest stores of water on Earth. While it might appear that the planet is covered in vast lakes and river systems, they make up only 0.01 per cent of the Earth’s water. In fact, we now know there is 100 times as much groundwater on this planet as there is freshwater on its surface. </p>
<p>Groundwater is the water contained beneath the Earth’s surface. It’s stored in the tiny cracks found within rock and the spaces between soil particles. It can extend deep into the subsurface, at least as much as 10 kilometres.</p>
<p>As groundwater researchers, we’re interested in how governments and industries might use these extensive groundwater reservoirs, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12917">such as for storing liquid waste</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.4.5.325">carbon dioxide</a>. But groundwater may also have environmental functions that have not yet been revealed — this body of water remains hidden, with very few windows available for us to explore it. </p>
<h2>One of Earth’s largest stores of water</h2>
<p>While scientists have known for at least <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429273322-2/world-water-inventory-control-1-nace">five decades</a> that groundwater makes up a large fraction of the world’s water, estimated volumes of groundwater had <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2590">focused on the upper two kilometres</a> of the Earth’s crust. </p>
<p>A recent analysis that looked 10 kilometres beneath the surface found that the true volume is likely twice as large. These new estimates mean that groundwater is the largest continental reservoir of water — even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093549">more than all the water contained in the continental ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland</a>, which were long thought to be the Earth’s second-largest stores of water. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A graphic showing the distribution of the Earth's water reservoirs. Most water is found in the oceans, but the next largest fraction is shallow fresh ground water and deep, salty groundwater." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441385/original/file-20220118-23-185lmp0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The relative sizes of the Earth’s water reservoirs. Groundwater makes up about 60 per cent of the water on land.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AGU/Geophysical Research Letters)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Previous groundwater estimates arrived at lower volumes because they only considered groundwaters at shallower depths. But <a href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geology/article-lookup/27/12/1107">permeable rocks are found down to at least 10 kilometres</a> below the Earth’s surface and can hold water in cracks and pores. While these spaces only account for a small volume of the rock mass, they add up to nearly 44 million cubic kilometres of water in the upper 10 kilometres of rock, enough to fill more than 10,000 Grand Canyons. </p>
<p>Groundwater matters because it can provide reliable water for homes, irrigation and industry. But these wells <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc2755">tend to be less than 100 metres deep</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001339">they rarely approach one kilometre</a>. Most of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae6d8">groundwater contained in the rock below that is saline, sometimes several times saltier than seawater</a>, and unusable for drinking water or irrigation. </p>
<p>Scientists know much less about the groundwater stored more than one kilometre deep. Yet they have determined that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090461">rain and snow falling in North America can circulate to depths of one to four kilometres</a>. Beneath these depths there is only ancient water with other origins, last in contact with the atmosphere more than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2943">tens of thousands of years ago</a>, but sometimes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2017.10.022">in excess of a billion years ago</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ancient-groundwater-why-the-water-youre-drinking-may-be-thousands-of-years-old-167982">Ancient groundwater: Why the water you're drinking may be thousands of years old</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The circulation of this deep groundwater is controlled by the forces that drive flow, such as topography, and the permeability of the rock. For example, rainwater and snowmelt circulate more deeply in mountainous areas than flatter regions. Groundwater can flow at speeds of metres per year in sandstones and limestones, or nanometres per year in intact igneous and metamorphic rocks, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045565">due to extreme variations in the permeability of different rocks</a>.</p>
<h2>Environmental functions of deep groundwater</h2>
<p>All of this has helped contribute to the treatment of deeper groundwater as being separate from shallow groundwater resources. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.01.002">oil and gas producing regions often only protect groundwater to a certain depth</a>, without consideration of the strength of the connections between shallow and deep groundwaters.</p>
<p>This assumed disconnect is also the basis for a number of waste isolation projects, including the <a href="https://ptrc.ca/projects/co2-eor-and-storage/aquistore">geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide</a>, also called <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bakx-ccs-alberta-hubs-1.6288832">carbon capture and storage</a>, and of <a href="https://www.nwmo.ca/en/A-Safe-Approach/Facilities/Deep-Geological-Repository">nuclear waste repositories in Canada</a>, <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-repository-a-game-changer-for-the-nuclear-industry-director-general-grossi-says">Finland</a> and elsewhere.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A large underground empty room, brightly lit with cream-coloured walls." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441386/original/file-20220118-15-12rg8wf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Onkalo was built to house high-level radioactive waste for at least 500 years. The storage facilities are set 500 metres deep in 1.9-billion-year-old rock on the coast of Finland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olkiluoto_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository_01.jpg">(Teemu Väisänen/Wikimedia)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deep groundwaters may only be weakly connected to the rest of the hydrologic cycle but this does not mean they are unimportant to the functioning of our planet. Microbes have been found in most subsurface environments with temperatures below 80 C, typical for depths of three to four kilometres. This subsurface life likely accounts for <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506">more than 10 per cent of the Earth’s total biomass</a>, and yet the links between deep groundwater circulation and subsurface life are largely unexplored at this time.</p>
<p>There’s clearly still much to learn about deep groundwater. Our windows into the deep subsurface are limited to deep mines, oil and gas wells and a handful of research sites. </p>
<p>New approaches are required to understand deep groundwater, its environmental functions and interactions with the rest of the hydrologic cycle over deep time, both in the past and into the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Ferguson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and Global Water Futures.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer C. McIntosh receives funding from NSF EAR (2120733), Keck Foundation, and CIFAR Earth4D: Subsurface Science and Exploration Program. </span></em></p>Groundwater is the second-largest store of water on Earth. Governments and industry use groundwater reservoirs to store waste, but it may also have environmental functions that haven’t been revealed.Grant Ferguson, Professor, Department of Civil, Geological and Environmental Engineering and School of Environment and Sustainability, University of SaskatchewanJennifer C. McIntosh, Professor, Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1727662021-12-01T02:00:39Z2021-12-01T02:00:39Z3 reasons the announcement to dump radioactive waste in South Australia is extremely premature<p>Radioactive waste from nuclear medicine facilities around Australia will be trucked to and buried near the South Australian town of Kimba, the federal government <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/pitt/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-be-delivered-near-kimba-south-australia">announced this week</a>. </p>
<p>The site, Napandee, comprises 211 hectares of government-acquired land, with radioactive waste set to be stored for over 100 years in deep trenches. </p>
<p>The announcement comes after six years of consultation with the local community – but, as federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt noted, the problem of managing radioactive waste has been on the national agenda for 40 years. </p>
<p>There is a good reason it has taken so long: storing radioactive waste is a complex issue. </p>
<p>Radioactive waste is extremely hazardous to people and the environment. It emits radiation, which can pollute water, kill wildlife and cause a number of deadly human health issues such as cancer. Even waste with low potency levels needs to be stored away for centuries, so the community should be assured the repository is well designed and properly managed. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/japan-plans-to-dump-a-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-but-australia-has-nuclear-waste-problems-too-148337">Japan plans to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific. But Australia has nuclear waste problems, too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Currently, radioactive waste – which results from the radiation needed to perform diagnostic imaging and cancer treatment – is scattered in dedicated storage facilities in hospitals across the country, but the majority is secured safely at Lucas Heights in Sydney. </p>
<p>While Pitt is celebrating what he regards as a resolution, there are three reasons this announcement is premature.</p>
<h2>1. Legislative and regulatory hurdles</h2>
<p>Twenty years ago, The Olsen government of SA <a href="https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/nuclear%20waste%20storage%20facility%20(prohibition)%20act%202000/current/2000.68.auth.pdf">passed legislation</a> to prevent radioactive waste being brought into the state. When the Howard government proposed storing radioactive waste in the state soon after, the subsequent Rann government strengthened that legislation. </p>
<p>This means the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/nrwmf-infopack/nrwmf-land-requirement-proposal-napandee.pdf">new proposal</a> will require the current SA government to repeal or amend the current law. This will be difficult, as Premier Steven Marshall runs a minority government and, with an MP <a href="https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/pitt/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-be-delivered-near-kimba-south-australia">defecting in October</a>, he’s likely to struggle to get the support he needs.</p>
<p>There is also a regulatory hurdle. A proposal such as this needs the approval of the regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Authority (<a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/">ARPANSA</a>), which will assess the proposal to determine whether it ensures the safety of people and the natural environment.</p>
<p>ARPANSA took the previous proposal by the Howard government very seriously. The process included public hearings at which the Director of ARPANSA was assisted by two scientists – I was one and the other was a Canadian expert in radioactive waste management. </p>
<p>It became clear in the assessment process that the federal government had made no attempt to calculate the risk of transporting radioactive waste from the various sites where it’s now stored to the more secure centralised facility. It simply asserted that the risk was minimal. </p>
<p>ARPANSA was not impressed by this data-free approach. Faced with opposition by the state government and questions raised by the regulator, the federal government <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0708/RadioactiveWaste">withdrew the proposal</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-does-the-world-store-nuclear-waste-and-not-just-shoot-it-into-the-sun-or-deep-space-108675">Curious Kids: why does the world store nuclear waste and not just shoot it into the Sun or deep space?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. The waste is more dangerous</h2>
<p>The second serious hurdle is that “intermediate level” waste from a nuclear reactor temporarily stored at Lucas Heights <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/nrwmf-infopack/nrwmf-land-requirement-proposal-napandee.pdf">will be sent there</a>.</p>
<p>The new Napandee facility will mostly store the comparatively benign “low-level waste”. This includes residues from nuclear medicine, scientific research and industrial applications. Once buried in deep trenches, this poses relatively little risk to humans or wildlife. </p>
<p>Intermediate level waste is much nastier and demands much greater levels of security. It contains long-lived radioactive isotopes that need to be isolated and contained for periods of thousands of years – effectively permanent disposal. This is generally seen as requiring engineered underground containment facilities, rather than the near-surface repositories used for low-level waste. </p>
<p>No such facility to safely, and permanently, house this waste has been built in Australia, and the regulator will undoubtedly require assurances it could be safely constructed and managed. </p>
<p>It will also be much more difficult to justify transporting this waste along the roads of three states, given it’s now securely held at Lucas Heights. Transporting nuclear waste <a href="https://media.nti.org/documents/global_incidents_trafficking_2018.pdf">comes with risks</a> of accidents or possible theft by terrorists of the dangerous material. </p>
<p>There seems to be no point moving intermediate waste from its temporary storage in Lucas Heights, to temporary storage in Napandee.</p>
<h2>3. No consent from Traditional Owners</h2>
<p>The third hurdle for the proposal is the opposition of the Barngarla Traditional Owners, who have made clear they <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/11/21/unanimous-no-vote-traditional-owners-sas-proposed-nuclear-waste-dump">do not support</a> the proposal for radioactive waste to be stored on their land. </p>
<p>After the consultation process in SA, a ballot showed 60% of the local residents supported the proposal. But the the Barngarla people say they have <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/11/21/unanimous-no-vote-traditional-owners-sas-proposed-nuclear-waste-dump">not been included</a> in consultations.</p>
<p>In previous decades, our governments have ridden roughshod over the wishes of Traditional Owners and imposed developments they did not want. Today, the Australian public is generally more respectful of the wishes of Traditional Owners. </p>
<p>There will certainly be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/29/traditional-owners-expected-to-challenge-nuclear-waste-facility-in-south-australia">legal challenges</a> to the government’s scheme. But even if the Barngarla people don’t have the law on their side, they have the moral authority. It will be politically difficult for any government to justify going ahead with a scheme that is totally opposed by the relevant Indigenous group.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uranium-mines-harm-indigenous-people-so-why-have-we-approved-a-new-one-116262">Uranium mines harm Indigenous people – so why have we approved a new one?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The storage of radioactive waste is the extreme example of an issue that demands long-term thinking. Finding a site must involve serious discussion with Traditional Owners as well as current landholders. There is <a href="https://theconversation.com/japan-plans-to-dump-a-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-but-australia-has-nuclear-waste-problems-too-148337">no need to rush</a>, as the intermediate-level waste is securely held in temporary storage at Lucas Heights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof. Ian Lowe was for twelve years a member of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, which advises the regulator ARPANSA.</span></em></p>Radioactive waste from nuclear medicine facilities will be trucked to and buried near the South Australian town of Kimba. But this decision still faces a range of hurdles.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1612772021-05-21T09:05:35Z2021-05-21T09:05:35ZWe sliced open radioactive particles from soil in South Australia and found they may be leaking plutonium<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402073/original/file-20210521-17-edjl65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C5%2C1842%2C1050&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost 60 years after British nuclear tests ended, radioactive particles containing plutonium and uranium still contaminate the landscape around Maralinga in outback South Australia.</p>
<p>These “hot particles” are not as stable as we once assumed. Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89757-5">research</a> shows they are likely releasing tiny chunks of plutonium and uranium which can be easily transported in dust and water, inhaled by humans and wildlife and taken up by plants.</p>
<h2>A British nuclear playground</h2>
<p>After the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, other nations raced to build their own nuclear weapons. Britain was looking for locations to conduct its tests. When it approached the Australian government in the early 1950s, Australia was only too eager to agree.</p>
<p>Between 1952 and 1963, Britain detonated 12 nuclear bombs in Australia. There were three in the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, but most were in outback South Australia: two at Emu Field and seven at Maralinga. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402074/original/file-20210521-15-1wjoju3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">British nuclear tests left behind a radioactive legacy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Besides the full-scale nuclear detonations, there were hundreds of “subcritical” trials designed to test the performance and safety of nuclear weapons and their components. These trials usually involved blowing up nuclear devices with conventional explosives, or setting them on fire. </p>
<p>The subcritical tests released radioactive materials. The Vixen B trials alone (at the Taranaki test site at Maralinga) spread 22.2 kilograms of plutonium and more than 40 kilograms of uranium across the arid landscape. For comparison, the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, while the one dropped on Hiroshima held 64 kilograms of uranium. </p>
<p>These tests resulted in long-lasting radioactive contamination of the environment. The full extent of the contamination was only realised in 1984, before the land was returned to its traditional owners, the Maralinga Tjarutja people.</p>
<h2>Hot potatoes</h2>
<p>Despite numerous cleanup efforts, residual plutonium and uranium remains at Maralinga. Most is present in the form of “hot particles”. These are tiny radioactive grains (much smaller than a millimetre) dispersed in the soil. </p>
<p>Plutonium is a radioactive element mostly made by humans, and the weapons-grade plutonium used in the British nuclear tests has a half life of 24,100 years. This means even 24,100 years after the Vixen B trials that ended in 1963, there will still be almost two Nagasaki bombs worth of plutonium spread around the Taranaki test site.</p>
<p>Plutonium emits alpha radiation that can damage DNA if it enters a body through eating, drinking or breathing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dig-for-secrets-the-lesson-of-maralingas-vixen-b-15456">Dig for secrets: the lesson of Maralinga's Vixen B</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In their original state, the plutonium and uranium particles are rather inactive. However, over time, when exposed to atmosphere, water, or microbes, they may weather and release plutonium and uranium in dust or rainstorms. </p>
<p>Until recently, we knew little about the internal makeup of these hot particles. This makes it very hard to accurately assess the environmental and health risks they pose.</p>
<p>Monash PhD student Megan Cook (the lead author on our new paper) took on this challenge. Her research aimed to identify how plutonium was deposited as it was carried by atmospheric currents following the nuclear tests (some of it travelled <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X20302526?via%3Dihub">as far as Queensland</a>!), the characteristics of the plutonium hot particles when they landed, and potential movement within the soil. </p>
<h2>Nanotechnology to the rescue</h2>
<p>Previous studies used the super intense X-rays generated by synchrotron light sources to map the distribution and oxidation state of plutonium inside the hot particles at the micrometre scale. </p>
<p>To get more detail, we used X-rays from the Diamond synchrotron near Oxford in the UK, a <a href="https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Public/How-Diamond-Works.html">huge machine</a> more than half a kilometre in circumference that produces light ten billion times brighter than the Sun in a particle accelerator.</p>
<p>Studying how the particles absorbed X-rays revealed they contained plutonium and uranium in several different states of oxidation – which affects how reactive and toxic they are. However, when we looked at the shadows the particles cast in X-ray light (or “X-ray diffraction”), we couldn’t interpret the results without knowing more about the different chemicals inside the particles. </p>
<p>To find out more, we used a <a href="https://www.monash.edu/researchinfrastructure/cryo-em">machine</a> at Monash University that can slice open tiny samples with a nanometre-wide beam of high-energy ions, then analyse the elements inside and make images of the interior. This is a bit like using a lightsaber to cut a rock, only at the tiniest of scales. This revealed in exquisite detail the complex array of materials and textures inside the particles.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/402075/original/file-20210521-23-93bbbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plutonium and uranium show up as bright lumps embedded in darker iron-aluminium alloy in this electron microscope image.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89757-5">Cook et al (2021), Scientific Reports</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Much of the plutonium and uranium is distributed in tiny particles sized between a few micrometres and a few nanometres, or dissolved in iron-aluminium alloys. We also discovered a plutonium-uranium-carbon compound that would be destroyed quickly in the presence of air, but which was held stable by the metallic alloy.</p>
<p>This complex physical and chemical structure of the particles suggests the particles formed by the cooling of droplets of molten metal from the explosion cloud.</p>
<p>In the end, it took a multidisciplinary team across three continents — including soil scientists, mineralogists, physicists, mineral engineers, synchrotron scientists, microscopists, and radiochemists — to reveal the nature of the Maralinga hot particles.</p>
<h2>From fire to dust</h2>
<p>Our results suggest natural chemical and physical processes in the outback environment may cause the slow release of plutonium from the hot particles over the long term. This release of plutonium is likely to be contributing to ongoing uptake of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X13002294?via%3Dihub">plutonium by wildlife at Maralinga</a>.</p>
<p>Even under the semi-arid conditions of Maralinga, the hot particles slowly break down, liberating their deadly cargo. The lessons from the Maralinga particles are not limited to outback Australia. They are also useful in understanding particles generated from dirty bombs or released during subcritical nuclear incidents. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-silence-of-ediacara-the-shadow-of-uranium-72058">Friday essay: the silence of Ediacara, the shadow of uranium</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There have been a few documented instances of such incidents. These include the B-52 accidents that resulted in the conventional detonation of thermonuclear weapons near Palomares in Spain in 1966, and Thule in Greenland in 1968, and the explosion of an armed nuclear missile and subsequent fire at the McGuire Air Force Base in the USA in 1960. </p>
<p>Thousands of active nuclear weapons are still held by nations around the world today. The Maralinga legacy shows the world can ill afford incidents involving nuclear particles.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Our team received funding from the Australian Synchrotron for travel to the Diamond Synchrotron (International Synchrotron Access Program proposal ISP14388)
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Brugger receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Base and Precious Metals Mining Companies. He is a frequent user of synchrotron facilities in Australia, US, Europe, and Japan, and acknowledges in-kind support from these facilities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa Wong receives funding from the Victorian State Government and the Australian Research Council. She is currently the President of Soil Science Australia, a not-for-profit, professional association for soil scientists and people interested in the responsible management of Australia’s soil resources.</span></em></p>Radioactive pollution left over from British nuclear tests in South Australia may steadily be leaching into the environment.Barbara Etschmann, Research officer, Monash UniversityJoël Brugger, Professor of Synchrotron Geosciences, Monash UniversityVanessa Wong, Associate Professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1340042020-05-01T16:33:31Z2020-05-01T16:33:31ZFour things you didn’t know about nuclear waste<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331777/original/file-20200430-42918-10tticr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">vchal / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some of what you’ve heard about nuclear waste is true. It really can take thousands of years to decay, and even the briefest exposure to the most dangerous kind can be lethal.</p>
<p>But in my ten years working with and <a href="https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/laura.leay.html">researching nuclear waste</a>, I’ve also encountered a lot of nonsense. It’s simply not as bad as many of the scare stories make out. And with the UK and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/27/the-most-divisive-thing-two-small-towns-brace-for-a-vote-on-nuclear-waste">other countries</a> having to decide <a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-governments-need-to-stop-dithering-and-take-action-123977">where to host the next generation of nuclear waste disposal facilities</a>, such misconceptions can be very damaging.</p>
<p>Nuclear waste can be thought of as anything that comes from a site licensed to handle nuclear material which is no longer useful. Radioactive waste is anything that isn’t useful and also gives off harmful <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-radiation-is-harmful-to-health-17906">ionising radiation</a>. I want to clear up a few things about these types of waste:</p>
<h2>1. It doesn’t glow</h2>
<p>This is not a documentary:</p>
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/3o6MbhtkkwxpctDJa8" width="100%" height="362" frameborder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/season-17-the-simpsons-17x21-3o6MbhtkkwxpctDJa8">via GIPHY</a></p>
<p>Homer Simpson’s real life equivalents are not constantly handling glowing objects. </p>
<p>If you could see into a nuclear reactor, or some cooling ponds that hold radioactive waste, you would indeed see a blue glow. But this isn’t directly coming from the radioactive material. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4hijBTgrvjY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Cherenkov Radiation in 60 seconds.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The blue glow is given off by the water when charged particles, such as electrons, are emitted from the radioactive material at very high speeds. The water slows the charged particles down by absorbing some of their energy and the water then gives off this energy in the form of light. This makes the water around some radioactive objects appear to glow very brightly. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/331775/original/file-20200430-42956-13aruhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Radioactive water was once sold as ‘A Cure for the Living Dead’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/96712513@N07/25799475341">Sam LaRussa</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And if you thought the glow would be green rather than blue, this myth probably has its origins in the use of radioactive substances to make glow-in-the-dark paint. </p>
<p>In the 1920s, many so-called “<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/radium-girls-radioactive-paint/index.html">Radium Girls</a>” died in the US after licking paintbrushes in a factory where they worked applying glow-in-the-dark paint to watches. </p>
<h2>2. It’s not kept in oil barrels</h2>
<p>Popular images suggest barrels that look a little bit like they might contain oil. But waste from the nuclear industry takes many forms and there isn’t much of it that actually looks like oil. </p>
<p>Some things are classified as radioactive waste because they’re coated in dangerous radioactive particles that would be very difficult to remove. This includes things like filters from air vents and suits that workers have worn to stop the particles from getting on their skin. It also includes scraps of metal, sand used in water treatment processes, and rubble. </p>
<p>The really radioactive stuff comes from spent nuclear fuel, mostly uranium that has been used inside a reactor, some of which has undergone radioactive decay that converts it into different chemical elements. The spent fuel is dissolved in acid so that the useful chemical elements can be extracted and used to make new fuel. </p>
<p>The remaining liquid waste is then converted back into a solid (<a href="https://www.livescience.com/62623-radioactive-waste-trapped-in-glass.html">glass</a>), which makes it easier to handle. This sort of waste doesn’t take up much physical space, but accounts for <a href="https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/10/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there-in-the-uk/">most of the radioactivity in the UK inventory</a>.</p>
<h2>3. It’s packaged to very high standards</h2>
<p>Most of the solid types of waste are placed into a 500 litre drum and then have a very specific type and amount of cement poured on top. This then flows around the waste and turns it into a strong and solid block that is pretty radiation resistant compared to other materials, like plastic. </p>
<p>Some types of waste are squashed in a specialist machine before cementation. Where liquid waste is turned in to glass, it must meet some quality criteria such as how much power it can give off from the radioactive isotopes. These criteria ensure the waste can be safely stored for a long time.</p>
<p>Some of it is so radioactive it gets hot. Used nuclear fuel contains lots of different radioactive elements and some of them decay very quickly. When they decay, they give off a lot of energy that can be absorbed by their surroundings, making them warm.</p>
<h2>4. Some of it can be handled safely</h2>
<p>Radiation is all around us. It comes from the rocks in the ground, from space and from certain medical procedures such as X-rays. </p>
<p>If you experience a lot of radiation very quickly it will cause harm, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-much-radiation-is-harmful-to-health-17906">low amounts can be handled safely</a>. This is why radiation workers have limits that they stick to. Someone who works with radiation is allowed to receive a dose of 20 millisieverts per year (a sievert is a measure of radioactivity). In comparison, a chest X-ray will give you a radiation dose of 0.1 millisieverts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134004/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Leay receives funding from The national Nuclear Laboratory and Sellafield Limited. She is affiliated with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.</span></em></p>In my ten years working with and researching it, I’ve encountered lots of myths.Laura Leay, Nuclear Engineering Innovation Fellow, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/967002018-05-29T10:41:14Z2018-05-29T10:41:14ZThe federal government has long treated Nevada as a dumping ground, and it’s not just Yucca Mountain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220671/original/file-20180528-80653-cnqrmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A 2015 tour of an entryway into the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Yucca-Mountain/fb26da9be78c4d2c854f991aa053ff45/3/0">AP Photo/John Locher</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nevadans can be forgiven for thinking they are in an endless loop of “The Walking Dead” TV series. Their least favorite zombie federal project refuses to die.</p>
<p>In 2010, Congress had abandoned plans to turn <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125740818">Yucca Mountain</a>, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, into the nation’s only federal dump for <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-03.html">nuclear waste so radioactive</a> it requires permanent isolation. And the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3053/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D">House recently voted by a wide margin</a> to resume these efforts.</p>
<p>Nevada’s U.S. Senators <a href="https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=526CDC21-D0DB-40ED-AF19-7A3A737E9B98">Dean Heller</a>, a Republican, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPlEUm7WeXI">Catherine Cortez Masto</a>, a Democrat, have made <a href="https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/heller-and-cortez-masto-administration-s-yucca-request-is-dead-on-arrival">their determination to block the latest Yucca proposal</a> clear since <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/yucca-mountain-trump/519972/">the Trump administration</a> first proposed resurrecting the project in early 2017.</p>
<p>While teaching and <a href="http://www.unevadapress.com/books/?view=series&seriesid=5956">writing about the state’s history</a> for more than 30 years, I have followed the Yucca Mountain fight from the beginning – as well as how Nevadans’ views have evolved on all things nuclear. The project could well go forward, but I believe that it probably won’t as long as there are political benefits to stopping it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VPlEUm7WeXI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto expresses her concerns about the storing nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain to Energy Secretary Rick Perry.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The roots of statewide resentment</h2>
<p><a href="https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/independent-poll-yucca-stadium-taxes-unpopular-voters">Two-thirds of Nevadans oppose this plan</a>, according to a 2017 poll. The state’s experience with federal actions, including nuclear weapons and waste, may help explain the proposed repository’s <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevadas-congressional-group-unites-against-yucca-mountain-bill/">long-standing unpopularity</a>.</p>
<p>When Nevada became a state in 1864, it had to <a href="http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood">cede all claims to federal land within its boundaries</a>. This left the federal government owning more than 85 percent of the state, reducing its potential tax base, and angering ranchers who have <a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/19397/reviews/121467/garone-carr-childers-size-risk-histories-multiple-use-great-basin">chafed at federal controls and fees for grazing their livestock</a> ever since.</p>
<p>In 1873, the U.S. adopted the gold standard, reducing the value of silver – large amounts of which came from Nevada, known as the “The Silver State.” After the “Crime of ’73,” Nevadan state leaders dedicated themselves to restoring silver as <a href="https://www.usmint.gov/news/inside-the-mint/mint-history-crime-of-1873">an anchor of monetary policy</a>, to no avail.</p>
<p>A series of boom-and-bust cycles ensued. Nevadans sought other means of prosperity, including some that other states shunned. In 1897, for example, <a href="http://unevadapress.com/books/?isbn=9780874179286">Nevada hosted a world heavyweight boxing championship</a> when other states refused.</p>
<p>That decision and the state’s declining population prompted the <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1897/05/22/101105383.html">Chicago Tribune to suggest revoking Nevada’s statehood</a>. Similar calls cropped up over Nevada’s <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/legalizing-casino-gambling-helped-revive-nevada-80-years-ago/">permissive divorce and gambling</a> laws.</p>
<h2>A magnet for federal projects</h2>
<p>Tourism, however, became central to Nevada’s economy. So did federal projects, like <a href="https://www.snwa.com/where-southern-nevada-gets-its-water/the-colorado-river/index.html">Hoover Dam</a>, which enabled southern Nevada to obtain most of the water it needs to survive. </p>
<p>World War II and the Cold War prompted numerous federal projects that benefited southern Nevada. A wartime gunnery school evolved into <a href="http://www.nellis.af.mil/">Nellis Air Force Base</a>, and a magnesium plant led to the founding of the <a href="http://www.cityofhenderson.com/news/city-history">city of Henderson</a>.</p>
<p>In 1951, seeking a cheaper domestic location for nuclear tests and research, the Atomic Energy Commission chose part of Nellis. Until 1963, the Nevada Test Site was the scene of about 100 aboveground atomic tests, with more than 800 additional underground tests to follow until <a href="http://digital.library.unlv.edu/ntsohp/">nuclear testing ceased in 1992</a>.</p>
<p>When aboveground testing began, Nevada cashed in. The governor welcomed the chance to see the desert “<a href="http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/blasts-from-the-past">blooming with atoms</a>.” Las Vegas marketed the mushroom cloud as a tourist attraction, as well as <a href="https://lasvegassun.com/news/2004/jun/23/titus-discusses-nuclear-symbolism/">an atomic hairdo and cocktail</a>. Atomic Energy Commission pamphlets and videos declared the tests to be harmless to those living nearby. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pGJcwaUWNZg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An official atomic testing video cautioned Nevadans to keep their homes tidy as a precaution.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Distrusting government</h2>
<p>After learning more about the <a href="https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/18-december-1970-the-baneberry-incident/">health dangers associated with nuclear fallout</a>, Nevadans began to trust the government less. Repeated leaks and safety issues at the nation’s first <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/waste.html">low-level</a> nuclear waste dump, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/25/radioactive-waste-dump-fire-reveals-nevada-troubled-past">opened in 1962 in Beatty, Nevada</a>, eventually led to its closure in 1992.</p>
<p>Distant nuclear incidents also stoked concerns. The nation’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/30/530708793/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-to-shut-down-in-2019">worst nuclear accident</a> to date at the <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html">Three Mile Island</a> plant in Pennsylvania, as well as <a href="http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/what-is-chernobyl/">the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl meltdown</a>, rang alarm bells.</p>
<p>Separately, some rural Nevadans came to resent federal regulations overall, especially after the federal government increased the Bureau of Land Management’s regulatory powers in the mid-1970s. Their <a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion">Sagebrush Rebellion</a> sought state control over almost all federal lands within Nevada’s borders and spread throughout the rural West.</p>
<h2>The ‘Screw Nevada’ bill</h2>
<p>As nuclear testing waned, the federal government scrambled to find somewhere to stow the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-moves-to-revive-the-mothballed-nuclear-waste-dump-at-yucca-mountain/">spent fuel from nuclear power plants that had piled up in 39 states</a>. In 1982, Congress approved a plan for the consideration of sites in <a href="https://www.energy.gov/downloads/nuclear-waste-policy-act">Washington, Texas and Nevada</a>.</p>
<p>But five years later, without getting conclusive findings based on those studies, lawmakers voted to consider only one site – <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/twenty-five-years-later-screw-nevada-bill-elicits-strong-feelings/">Yucca Mountain</a>, about 20 miles west of the dump for less- radioactive nuclear waste in Beatty. The state’s leaders and pundits protested this “Screw Nevada” bill, which they ascribed to the state’s lack of political clout.</p>
<p>Around that time, Nevada created <a href="http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/about.htm">a new state agency to deal with nuclear issues</a> and a state commission charged with warding off nuclear waste. A bevy of new state laws made it harder for federal officials and private contractors to obtain and pay for licenses needed for work on Yucca Mountain, and the state filed numerous lawsuits.</p>
<p>Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat first elected in 1986, crusaded against the measure. So did his Nevada colleagues in Congress.</p>
<p>To make their case, Nevadans pointed out the safety risks in moving nuclear waste along highways and railroads to their state, and how terrorists might take advantage of that opportunity. They cheered when a <a href="http://www.westwingepguide.com/S3/Episodes/62_STIRRED.html">“West Wing” episode zeroed in on these dangers</a>. </p>
<p>Reid eventually moved up through Senate ranks as one of the nation’s most powerful lawmakers, serving as the majority and minority leader. When former President Barack Obama took office and had to depend on Reid’s help, he <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101689489">ended funding for Yucca Mountain</a>.</p>
<h2>What to expect this time</h2>
<p>Obama and Reid are no longer calling any shots, and Nevada’s congressional delegation is more junior than it’s been in decades. The overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House suggests that Democrats may be less interested in protecting Nevada than they were when Reid had so much power in the Senate.</p>
<p>But Heller is up for re-election this year, and his is one of the few Republican Senate seats that Democrats feel confident that they can win in the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/2/17303554/senate-elections-2018-midterms-democrats-beto-orourke-kyrsten-sinema-dean-heller-jacky-rosen">2018 mid-terms</a>.</p>
<p>If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decides that enabling Heller to claim that he saved Nevada from hosting the nation’s nuclear waste will help re-elect him, protecting the GOP’s slim majority, I think Yucca Mountain will be dead again. At least for the moment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Green is affiliated with the Institute for a Progressive Nevada.</span></em></p>If recent history repeats itself, the proposed repository for extremely dangerous nuclear waste will stay dead.Michael Green, Associate Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/903782018-03-05T11:45:23Z2018-03-05T11:45:23ZThe Cold War’s toxic legacy: Costly, dangerous cleanups at atomic bomb production sites<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208704/original/file-20180302-65529-blvpr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C291%2C2020%2C1152&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nuclear reactors line the bank of the Columbia River at the Hanford site in 1960.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Hanford_N_Reactor_adjusted.jpg">USDOE</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Seventy-five years ago, in March 1943, a mysterious construction project began at a remote location in eastern Washington state. Over the next two years some 50,000 workers built an industrial site occupying half the area of Rhode Island, costing over US$230 million – equivalent to $3.1 billion today. Few of those workers, and virtually no one in the surrounding community, knew the facility’s purpose. </p>
<p>The site was called Hanford, named for a small town whose residents were displaced to make way for the project. Its mission became clear at the end of World War II. Hanford had produced plutonium for the first nuclear test in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, and for the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki on Aug. 9. </p>
<p><a href="https://chass.ncsu.edu/people/wjkinsel/">As a researcher</a> in environmental and energy communication, I’ve studied the <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739119044/Nuclear-Legacies-Communication-Controversy-and-the-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Complex">legacies of nuclear weapons production</a>. From 2000 to 2005, I served with a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab">citizen advisory board</a> that provides input to state and federal officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at Hanford, now one of the most contaminated sites in the world. </p>
<p>As U.S. leaders <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF">consider producing new nuclear weapons</a>, I believe they should study lessons from Hanford carefully. Hanford provides one of the more dramatic examples of problems that unfolded – and persist today – at nuclear sites where production and secrecy took priority over safety and environmental protection. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208697/original/file-20180302-65519-rkmkeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/ProjectsFacilities#HM">www.hanford.gov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A nationwide nuclear network</h2>
<p>Hanford was one of three large facilities anchoring the <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history">Manhattan Project</a> – the crash program to build an atomic bomb. It was part of a larger complex linking facilities across the nation. A plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, enriched uranium and operated a prototype nuclear reactor. Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico assembled a cadre of world-class scientists to design and build the weapons, using materials produced at the other sites. Smaller facilities across the nation made other contributions. </p>
<p>As World War II phased into the Cold War and the U.S.-Soviet arms race escalated, new sites were added in Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Colorado and elsewhere. Secrecy masked much of the work at these sites until well into the 1980s, with serious consequences for public health, worker safety and the environment. Nuclear and chemical wastes caused severe contamination at Hanford and the other sites, and dealing with them has proved to be difficult and costly. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208700/original/file-20180302-65544-lfz718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Major sites in the Cold War nuclear weapons production complex.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmhb/chapters/chapter_4.htm">USDOD</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Contamination at Hanford</h2>
<p>When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the United States had mass-produced some 70,000 nuclear bombs and warheads. <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html">Hanford made most of the plutonium used in those weapons</a>. Workers irradiated uranium fuel in reactors, and then dissolved it in acid to extract the plutonium produced. This method, called reprocessing, generated 56 million gallons of liquid wastes laced with radioactive and chemical poisons. </p>
<p>Hanford’s nine reactors were <a href="http://www.toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+Contamination+of+the+Columbia+River">located along the Columbia River</a> to provide a source of cooling water, and discharged radiation into the river throughout their lifetimes. </p>
<p>Fuel was sometimes reprocessed before its most highly radioactive isotopes had time to decay. Managers knowingly released toxic gases into the air, contaminating farmlands and grazing areas downwind. Some releases supported an <a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199602/backpage.cfm">effort to monitor Soviet nuclear progress</a>. By tracking intentional emissions from Hanford, scientists learned better how to spot Soviet nuclear tests. </p>
<p>Liquid wastes from reprocessing were stored in <a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-monitoring-closure">underground tanks</a> designed to last 25 years, assuming that a permanent disposal solution would be developed later. The U.S. Department of Energy, which now operates the weapons complex and its cleanup program, is still working on that solution.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208703/original/file-20180302-65507-1m8ksbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Workers prepare to remove the core from a waste tank at Hanford in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.hanford.gov/c.cfm/photogallery/img.cfm/c107holecutting/full/A%20cold%20winter%20afternoon%20as%20workers%20prepare%20to%20remove%20the%20core%20from%20tank%20C-107.jpg">Hanford Site</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meanwhile, at least a million gallons of tank wastes have <a href="http://hanfordlearning.org/hanford-101/cleanup/tri-party-agreement/department-of-energy/">leaked into the ground</a>. This material, and the prospect of more to follow, threatens the Columbia River, a backbone of the Pacific Northwest’s economy and ecology. <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/clock-ticks-as-nuclear-waste-storage-tanks-leak-at-hanford/">Some groundwater is already contaminated</a>. Estimates of when that plume will reach the river are uncertain. </p>
<p>Radioactive trash still litters parts of Hanford. Irradiated bodies of laboratory animals were <a href="https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Workers-uncover-carcasses-of-Hanford-test-animals-1225341.php">buried there</a>. The site houses radioactive debris ranging from medical wastes to <a href="http://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/safety/Pages/Naval-Nuclear-Transport.aspx">propulsion reactors from decommissioned submarines</a> and <a href="http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/pdf.cfm?accession=E0025397">parts of the reactor</a> that melted down at Three Mile Island. Some nuclear decision makers have called Hanford a “national sacrifice zone.” </p>
<h2>A struggle for accountability</h2>
<p>In the mid-1980s, local residents grew suspicious about an apparent excess of illnesses and deaths in their community. Initially, strict secrecy – reinforced by the region’s economic dependence on the Hanford site – made it hard for concerned citizens to get information. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208707/original/file-20180302-65529-33fcaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cold War-era billboard at Hanford reinforcing strict secrecy rules.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hanford_billboard.jpg">USDOE</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once the curtain of secrecy was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284">partially lifted</a> under pressure from area residents and journalists, public outrage prompted <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/background.pdf">two major health effects studies</a> that engendered fierce controversy. By the close of the decade, more than 3,500 “downwinders” had filed lawsuits related to illnesses they attributed to Hanford. A judge finally <a href="http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article57866938.html">dismissed the case</a> in 2016 after limited compensation to a handful of plaintiffs, leaving a bitter legacy of legal disputes and personal anguish. </p>
<p>Cleanup operations at Hanford began in 1989, but have been hamstrung by <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-hanford-ever-be-cleaned-up/">daunting technical challenges and management errors</a>. The <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2016_LCR_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf">current estimate</a> assumes work will continue through 2060 and cost over $100 billion, beyond the approximately $50 billion already spent. </p>
<p>A key challenge is building a facility to extract the most toxic materials from the tank wastes and enclose them in glass logs to be sent elsewhere for permanent burial. <a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article159590304.html">Projected costs</a> have ballooned to over $17 billion, and the estimated completion date is now 2036. And with the proposed <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341369-trump-triggers-fight-over-yucca-waste-site">Yucca Mountain</a> nuclear waste repository in Nevada mired in controversy, there is still no final resting place for these materials, which will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years. </p>
<p>Cleanup has progressed in other areas. The reactors have been shut down and enclosed in <a href="https://energy.gov/em/articles/hanford-workers-enter-reactor-prepare-cocooning">concrete and steel “cocoons”</a> until their radioactivity decays further. Hanford’s “<a href="http://b-reactor.org/">B Reactor</a>,” the world’s first large-scale nuclear reactor, is now part of the <a href="https://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project/manhattan-project-0">Manhattan Project National Historic Park</a>. </p>
<p>Buffer lands around the outer parts of the site, presumably clean enough for the purpose, have been converted to <a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/maps.html">wildlife refuge areas</a>. And in 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO), with a station located at Hanford, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259">detected the first gravitational waves</a> predicted by Albert Einstein. LIGO scientists chose Hanford for its remote location and minimal interference from human activity. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8rlVHEY7BF0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Inside Hanford’s B Reactor.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lessons to remember</h2>
<p>The Department of Energy now considers <a href="https://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites">many of its former nuclear weapons production sites</a> to be fully cleaned up. Some remaining sites are involved in maintaining the current nuclear arsenal and could play roles producing new weapons. Others, like Hanford, are “legacy” sites where cleanup is the sole mission. </p>
<p>There is more oversight of the nuclear weapons complex today, but serious concerns remain. Notably, inspectors have found problems at <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/">Los Alamos National Laboratory</a> dating back to 2011 related to handling of <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-identifies-new-workplace-safety-problems-at-los-alamos-lab">beryllium</a>, a toxic material that can cause cancer and lung disease.</p>
<p>These issues at Hanford and other nuclear sites are reminders that nuclear weapons production is a risky process – and that in Washington state and elsewhere, legacies of the Cold War are still very much with us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William J. Kinsella served from 2000 to 2005 on the Hanford Advisory Board, an organization of stakeholders that provides recommendations and advice to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington Department of Ecology on selected major policy issues related to the cleanup of the Hanford site.</span></em></p>During the Cold War, the US built nuclear weapons at a network of secretive sites across the nation. Some are still heavily polluted and threaten public health today.William J. Kinsella, Professor Emeritus of Communication, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/507452015-11-16T19:08:19Z2015-11-16T19:08:19ZAustralia needs a nuclear storage site, but it’s a long way away<p>The Federal government has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/06/muckaty-station-owners-propose-new-site-for-nuclear-waste-dump">recently announced</a> six potential sites for a low-level nuclear waste repository: Sallys Flat in New South Wales, Hale in the Northern Territory, Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia and Oman Ama in Queensland. The six were whittled down from an original list of 28 voluntarily nominated sites in a process set up under the <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012A00029">National Radioactive Waste Management Act</a> 2012.</p>
<p>The plan is to create a shortlist of three sites in 2016 and by the end of the year nominate the winning candidate. The site is <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/six-sites-shortlisted-for-australias-first-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-revealed-20151112-gkx8mo.html#ixzz3rQ6ImI8R">scheduled to be open</a> to receive Australia’s low-level nuclear waste by 2020.</p>
<p>Australia has been trying to construct such a facility for the past 35 years without success. Australia <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/RadioActiveWaste">urgently needs</a> a dedicated federal facility to deal with this waste since each year it produces approximately two swimming pools worth of low-level waste (40 cubic metres) and five cubic metres of intermediate-level wastes. There are now around 4,300 cubic metres of waste that needs to be housed.</p>
<p>So, will Australia finally get a nuclear waste site? </p>
<h2>Australia needs a storage site</h2>
<p>Low-level nuclear waste typically comprises items such as lightly irradiated paper, plastic, gloves, clothing, soil and filters typically generated by industry, hospitals and nuclear facilities. </p>
<p>Such <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf72.html">low-level waste</a> has been stored for decades at 100 interim sites such as universities or hospitals across Australia while intermediate-level radioactive waste can only presently be stored at the Lucas Heights facility in Sydney. </p>
<p>The issue is particularly urgent for intermediate-level waste disposal since in the next year, <a href="https://news.vice.com/article/australia-has-nowhere-to-put-its-shipment-of-french-nuclear-waste">13.2 cubic metres of such waste</a>, the byproduct of past contracts with France and Scotland, will need a home and the only currently available site is Lucas Heights.</p>
<p>Nuclear waste should be buried for at least several hundred years in a geologically stable area with a low water table and preferably away from population centres.</p>
<p>However, the Australian government has yet to be able to convince either state governments or individual landowners to host such a site. It has been unable to overcome a fierce backlash from local residents and environmentalists opposed to it being placed in their local area.</p>
<h2>A brief history of the storage debate</h2>
<p>From 1980 onwards, various Australian governments have attempted to site a low-level waste repository. (An intermediate waste site other than Lucas Heights has barely been mooted given the difficulty in siting even a low-level facility). </p>
<p>By 1992, a site near Woomera, South Australia was nominated. But that choice was abandoned by the federal government due to the intransigence of the SA government which, fearing a political backlash if it was built, refused to countenance a facility within its borders. While the federal government could theoretically have <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/RadioActiveWaste">overridden state objections</a>, it was not willing to pay the political price to do so.</p>
<p>In the face of state and territory opposition, the federal government <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56628">changed tack</a> and only sought out potential sites on Commonwealth land. </p>
<p>In June 2007 the indigenous Northern Land Council proposed an area at Muckaty, 120 kilometres from Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, on behalf of some of the traditional owners. The federal government in September 2007 <a href="http://www.nlc.org.au/media-releases/article/nlc-settles-on-muckaty">agreed</a> despite the objections of the territorial government.</p>
<p>To induce the indigenous elders to agree to the siting, the government was willing to pay A$200,000 to the Northern Land Council, for the benefit of Lauder Ngapa Group members, set up an eleven million dollar charitable trust, and one million dollars for education scholarships for the benefit of that group.</p>
<p>But a coalition of other Aboriginal traditional owners of the land initiated Federal Court proceedings <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/radioactive-dump--with-10-days-notice-court-told-20120328-1vxdz.html">to challenge the nomination</a> arguing that they had not been properly consulted nor had legally consented to hosting the site. </p>
<p>While the case was still ongoing the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth government agreed <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/northern-land-council-withdraws-muckaty-creek-nomination/5535318">to withdraw the nomination</a> arguing the issue was proving too divisive among the local indigenous clans.</p>
<p>While the need for a low-level waste repository has never been greater, given the record to date, parties are unlikely to reach agreement by the government’s proposed date, if at all. By international standards, the government offers relatively <a href="http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415819015/">low compensation</a> to affected locals, which is unlikely to be an effective inducement to allow community acceptance. </p>
<p>Further, the government’s general inability to put in place an effective process for engendering societal and indigenous acceptance despite multiple attempts does not bode well for success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Nagtzaam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia has been trying to construct a new nuclear storage site for the past thirty-five years without success.Gerry Nagtzaam, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/414342015-05-12T11:33:14Z2015-05-12T11:33:14ZBudget brief: how does science and research funding fare?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81388/original/image-20150512-22545-4tqimn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facilities funded under NCRIS, such as the Murchison Widefield Array, will continue to be supported under this budget.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MWA_32T_Tile.jpg">Natasha Hurley-Walker/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Conversation’s Budget briefs series aims to answer reader questions about the 2015 federal budget. Thanks to reader @NigelJk for this question.</em></p>
<p>The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-national-collaborative-research-infrastructure-strategy-ncris-38837">NCRIS</a>) has won an extra year of funding, worth $150 million, giving greater certainty to researchers working at 27 research facilities across the country.</p>
<p>There’s also $13 million for the Australian Synchrotron – the biggest piece of research infrastructure and our flagship infrastructure internationally.</p>
<p>But this has come at the expense of block funding grants, which support the scientists who conduct their research in NCRIS facilities. Funding research infrastructure by cutting $262.5 million in support for the researchers who use it is nonsensical.</p>
<p>And there’s been no word in the budget for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/future-fellowship-cuts-hit-early-stage-researchers-hardest-39180">Future Fellowships</a> program for mid-career researchers, which appears to remain tied to savings measures contained in the Higher Education Reform Bill.</p>
<h2>NCRIS reprieve</h2>
<p>NCRIS <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-infrastructure-funding-is-being-held-hostage-by-government-38423">hit the headlines</a> earlier this year over fears that as many as 1,700 highly skilled jobs would be lost in a political battle over funding. But in March, Education Minister Christopher Pyne <a href="https://theconversation.com/pyne-backflips-on-research-infrastructure-funding-cut-38849">committed</a> to an additional 12 months of funding for the $150 million program, taking the total amount outlined in this budget to $300 million.</p>
<p>Last week, The Australian <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/science-research-spared-the-budget-axe/story-e6frg8y6-1227339518985">reported</a> that the one-year lifeline would be extended to two. The longer-term funding for NCRIS will be announced after a <a href="http://docs.education.gov.au/node/36773">Research Infrastructure Review</a> led by businessman Philip Clark and Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, due out soon.</p>
<p>Back in March, Nobel Laureate and astronomer Brian Schmidt <a href="https://theconversation.com/pyne-backflips-on-research-infrastructure-funding-cut-38849">said</a> that while he was grateful for the NCRIS funding reprieve, scientists “certainly need a longer-term cycle” to avoid uncertainty over crucial research.</p>
<p>The government had been threatening to withhold NCRIS funding unless the Senate passed its university deregulation legislation – a negotiating tactic that ended up <a href="https://theconversation.com/pyne-backflips-on-research-infrastructure-funding-cut-38849">backfiring</a>. </p>
<p>Having offered a reprieve for NCRIS, the government’s science budget appears to be treading water. There are forecast increases, but these are outweighed by the forecast cuts.</p>
<p>There is an ongoing commitment to establish and fund the Medical Research Future Fund: good news. But there’s no significant news for the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.</p>
<h2>Radioactive waste</h2>
<p>Also mentioned in the budget is that Australia’s facilities are running out of room to store radioactive waste. The federal government will spend $22 million over the next three years to bring together existing waste sites and boost storage at Lucas Heights in Sydney.</p>
<p>ANSTO’s current waste-storage facilities are expected to reach full capacity by 2017. Meanwhile we’re due to take back our intermediate-level radioactive waste. The measure will ensure ANSTO can continue to store additional radioactive waste beyond 2017, pending the establishment of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. </p>
<p>The measure will provide additional storage capacity for up to 45 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste and 1,200 cubic metres of low-level waste.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) – so very important to the government’s stated aim of encouraging links between science and industry, and of translating research and development into jobs – have had their funding cut by $29.8 million. What will replace them?</p>
<p>Two more positives: the budget has allocated an additional $9.4 million for Antarctic research and $15.3 million for research into tropical diseases.</p>
<p>The story for science doesn’t end on budget night. The government has committed to working with the Australian Chief Scientist to develop a science strategy and will be consulting broadly with the sector over the coming months. This will be a big deal for Australian science and research and it will be important for every researcher and science organisation with an interest in Australia’s scientific future to provide considered input into the consultation. </p>
<p>As the mining boom slows, this should be a time of growth in science funding. We should be preparing Australia to build a knowledge economy so that we can not just survive but thrive in an increasingly competitive world.</p>
<p>We should be supporting our world-class research infrastructure, and our world-class researchers, to create new knowledge and innovation. And we should be supporting scientists and industry to forge strong links to translate this innovation into economic growth and security; not putting our future wealth and well-being at risk by plundering science for short-term savings.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Read more of The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/federal-budget-2015">Federal Budget 2015</a> coverage.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41434/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les Field does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and Future Fellowships schemes have won a reprieve in this year’s budget.Les Field, Secretary for Science Policy at the Australian Academy of Science, and Vice-President & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.