Japan's Nuclear Effect On Our Oceans

In the wake of the disasters that seem to keep coming to Japan's northeastern coastline, the ocean is receiving an influx of radioactive materials. This has undoubtedly been in the back of all our minds over the past several weeks, as the events proceeding the 9.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan continue to unfold. Of course,the human tragedies are a concern, as families and workers from all over the world are being affected. We should never forget that. While there are many out there to report on the human impact of all of this, there are markedly fewer reports on the possible impacts that this will have on the marine life, not only off the coast of Japan, but worldwide. Japan has already shut down most of its fishing industry and exports of seafood have either been cut off completely, or slowed to a snail s pace as the FDA conducts tests for radiation levels on any seafood product caught in Japanese waters. But is this entirely necessary? The ocean has been considered by humans throughout history as this unlimited sink, a vast volume of water that could not possibly be affected by the insignificant waste of our species. We are slowly beginning to realize the error in this line of thinking, but there is still some truth to those words. The ocean is indeed a vast volume of water, and thus pollutants that find their way into it are often diluted to the point that they are no longer detectable. The amount of waste and the time it takes that waste to dilute, however, can sometimes cause immediate ecological issues, and will always affect the long-term health of an ecosystem. Whether or not there will be immediate effects of the nuclear waste being ejected into Japan s oceans still remains to be seen. Commercially important fish such as anchovy have been found with small (but higher than normal) levels of radiation, and as with other harmful substances, it may biomagnify (compounds that remain in the ecosystem) up the food chain. But unlike typical harmful substances in seafood, such as mercury, radioactive materials decay over time, and ultimately become less harmful. A good example is radioactive iodine, which has been found in high levels off Japan s coast, and has even made it s way to the West Coast of the United States. Radioactive iodine has such a short half-life that it essentially disappears within a few weeks, and is often used in medical analyses and endocrine assays as radiolabels. But do fish and other marine life become radioactive simply by being in contaminated water? Not necessarily. The radioactive elements have to be absorbed by the organism, either by eating something that s contaminated, or diffusion through semi-permeable membranes exposed to the water. You may already be thinking this, but a membrane that comes to mind is the gill epithelium. Gills are constantly exchanging ions with the environment, and the big issue with radioactive elements is that they often mimic naturally occurring elements. For example, cesium-137 mimics potassium and strontium-90 mimics calcium (both radioactive isotopes which have been found in extremely high levels off the coast of Japan). If you know anything about important ions in marine life, you ll see the issue here. Both potassium and calcium are regularly exchanged across the gills in most marine organisms that have these structures, and in mollusks such as bivalves and gastropods, calcium is essential for building

the shell. Phytoplankton also rely on exchanging these ions and may be a vector for increased bioaccumulation in filter feeding fish, ultimately affecting everything up the food chain. But ultimately, we will simply have to wait and see what happens. We have few disasters of this magnitude from which to glean any helpful hints. But the ocean is vast, and radiation inherently vanishes. Scientists currently believe that the ocean will be the least impacted by this disaster, and rather the plume of airborne radioactive isotopes will cause more harm to land and freshwater supplies worldwide. Perhaps the solution to this pollution is indeed dilution.

Nuclear Power's Effect On The Environment

The environmental impact of any power generation station can be measured by quantifying the burden of fuel delivery, emissions of byproducts and wastes and the potential impact on the lives (human or otherwise) of those living nearby: Fuel Delivery: Like fossil fuels, the nuclear fuel raw materials come from the Earth. Uranium, the primary fuel material, is mined. The environmental impact of mining is well know; however, the advantage of nuclear power comes from the amount of power that comes from a small amount of uranium. The power from one kilogram of uranium is approximately equivalent to 100,000 kilograms of oil; therefore, as a function of power consumption, very little uranium needs to be removed from the ground; hence, the environmental impact of uranium mines is much less compared with mining and drilling for fossil fuels. Unlike oil or gas, nuclear fuel is solid; hence, nuclear fuel is immune to the environment problems posed by spillage during transportation to a power plant. Unused nuclear fuel is only slightly more radioactive that naturally occurring underground. Fuel delivery casks are designed with a high margin of safety to ensure that even in the event of a transportation accident, the environment remains free of contamination from the nuclear fuel. Emissions: In contrast to fossil fuel plants (coal, oil and gas), nuclear power plants do not produce any carbon dioxide or sulfur emissions, which are major contributors to the greenhouse effect and acid rain, respectively. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. nuclear power plants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from entering the earth's atmosphere each year. Nuclear power reactors do contribute a measurable increase in radiation to the environment around a nuclear power plant. However, this increase is relatively small compared to natural background radiation, and is less than the radioactivity released from a typical coal plant. Even with this increase in radiation, most employees of nuclear power plants receive exposures typically of workers in all

occupations. In addition, no evidence exists that show that small increases in radiation exposure having negative health effects. Impact on Local Habitat: Because nuclear power plants are relatively self-sufficient, plant siting is more amenable to environmental concerns. Oil and gas plants must be sited close to major pipelines and hydroelectric plants must be sited on rivers. Impact to wildlife habitat and municipalities may have to be compromised in order to site these type of plants. For example, public outrage over fish kills from hydroelectric power plants have limited new plant construction and policy makers are seriously considering the removal of existing dams around the United States. Meanwhile, strict siting regulation ensures that nuclear power plants have minimal impact to their surrounding areas. Waste: The most pressing environmental concern facing the nuclear industry is the issue of waste disposal. All processes produce waste. Nuclear waste from a power plant is unique in that it can be highly radioactive. While highly radioactive waste is hazardous to all living beings, nuclear fuel is amenable to containment, treatment, reduction and reprocessing (recycling). Processes have been developed to separate reusable fuel and the highly radioactive elements from used nuclear fuel. The waste products can then be made into a glass or ceramic waste pellet for disposal. The hazard associated with this pellet has a expected duration of about 100 years. Considering that chemical hazards maintain their nature indefinitely, this waste form may be preferable. Currently, such a waste treatment process is not being utilized in the United States because of political resistance; however, research continues to find new solutions to this problem. Safety: The nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine are well known; however, despite these incidents, nuclear power has a remarkable record. About 16% of electricity generated around the world comes from nuclear power, and in the last forty years of this production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, or South Korea. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the year 2000, the nuclear industry's safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for U.S. private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998 (the most recent year such data was available). Economics and Reliability: Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production. Nuclear fuel costs (as a function of power generation potential)

represent only a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Including capital and non-fuel operating costs, the cost of operating a nuclear power plant is roughly equivalent to fossil fuels. Recently, the average electricity production cost for nuclear energy was recognized as the cheapest source of electricity. In 1999, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 1.83 cents per kilowatthour, for coal-fired plants 2.07 cents, for oil 3.24 cents, and for gas 3.52 cents. Costs for solar and wind are still well beyond that considered to be competitive to the public. The cost of regulation and industry oversight of nuclear power generation is substantially more than that of other power generation sources; however, improvements in reliability and operational and maintenance efficiencies have contributed to reducing those costs. Currently, nuclear power plant capacity factors average over 75%. This is competitive with those of fossil fired plants. Most plants are designed to operate in a base load configuration; that is, they run at full power regardless of the demand on electricity. Nuclear power plants are particularly well suited for this purpose since they are designed to produce large quantities of power and can sustain operation for up to two years without refueling. Sustainability: The future of civilization will depend upon the indefinite supply of electricity. Clearly, there is a limit to the supply of fossil fuels. The most optimistic estimates have fossil fuel lasting no more than 100 years; however, they may become economically undesirable in much less time. Obviously wind, solar, and renewable energy sources (such as ethanol) can sustain our world with power indefinitely. However, the power generation potential from even a small amount of uranium is so great, even nuclear fuel can be included on this list. In the right configuration, nuclear power can provide electricity for generations. The right configuration is in the "Breeder Reactor." The design of the breeder reactor is such that even as fuel is consumed, new fuel is created as a byproduct. Only a few breeder reactor plants have been built. Since plutonium - a material used in nuclear weapons - is created in these plants, governments have been hesitant to allow their construction. Nonetheless, applying the breeder concept can reduce fuel prices so low that even the extraction of uranium from the worlds oceans would not be an overly expensive endeavor. In an article printed in the American Journal of Physics (vol. 51, Jan. 1983, B. Cohen), there is enough uranium in all the worlds oceans and the earths crust under the oceans to last 5 billion years (assuming that 6500 metric tons of uranium is removed annually). For all practical purposes, this is a reliable power source for all time.