Science in Christian Perspective
Far Greater Dangers than
Nuclear
Bernard L. Cohen
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.
From: JASA 32
(June1980): 89-92.
The paper on "Nuclear Wastes" by Ellen Winchester proves
only one thing,
that nuclear energy is not "perfectly safe." However, that is not a
practically useful conclusion, because no method for generating electricity is
perfectly safe-coal and oil burning cause lethal air pollution, gas
kills by asphyxiation
and explosions, hydroelectric dam failures could drown hundreds of thousands in
a few minutes, solar energy requires vast quantities of steel,
aluminum, and cement
whose production causes a wide variety of deadly pollution problems and doing without
electricity would be many times more dangerous than any of them. If the purpose
is to show that we should not use nuclear energy because of the
radioactive waste
problem, then it must he shown quantitatively that these wastes do more harm to
human health than the alternatives.
Dangers of Coal
I will therefore do what she has failed to do, to quantify the
dangers of nuclear
waste, and to compare them with the dangers of obtaining the same electricity
from burning coal which is our only presently viable alternative.
Typical estimates
are that the wastes from coal burning, must of which are simply discharged into
the air (air pollution) are at least 10,000 fatalities per year in
the U.S. This
may sound horrible, but it corresponds to a life expectancy reduction for the
average American of only 13 days. To put this risk to an individual
in perspective,
it is the risk an overweight person takes in adding 7 ounces to his weight, or
the risk of smoking one pack of cigarettes every 4 months, or the
risk of a woman
going 2.5 years without a PAP test (only 50% of women get them), or the risk of
not having a smoke alarm in your home (only 15% of all homes have them), and it
is four times less than the risk of driving small cars rather than
standard size
cars. It is only 2.5 times the risk of electrocution in using the electricity.
Whether these 10,000 fatalities per year (plus 10 million cases of respiratory
disease and $13 billion in property damage) are
"acceptable" is a matter
of opinion, but our society is accepting them. There are programs for reducing
the effects, hopefully down to the region of 2000 fatalities per
year, but these
are progressing very slowly and many experts believe they are on the
wrong track.
Nevertheless we seldom hear that the technology far handling the
wastes from coal-burning
is "yet to be established."
Nuclear Wastes
We now turn to the problem of nuclear waste. In estimating its effects, we use
the recommendations agreed to (with small variations) by all
prestigious national
and international groups charged with responsibility in this area,
including the
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR), the International Cornmission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and
national bodies in all advanced countries of the world. incidently these groups,
as well as the vast majority of the involved scientific community (which they
represent) reject the contention that radiation is more dangerous than it was
believed to he a few years ago-this is largely a fabrication of our news media
built upon very flimsy "new information" and ignoring the vast bulk
of more substantial data, both old and new. The above-named groups
give the 50%-lethal
level for plutonium in the lung as 10-100 times higher than
Winchester's figures,
and contrary to her statement, they have never recommended or even suggested a
lowering of allowable occupational exposure. EPA's justification for lowering
allowable exposure to the public from 170 to 25 mrem/ year was done
not because
of increases in estimated effects of radiation, but because the reduction was
deemed technologically achievable and the guiding philosophy is to
keep radiation
exposure as low as reasonably achievable.
High-Level Waste
The solution to the problem of high-level waste is to convert it into
a rock and
bury it where the rocks are, deep underground. It is easy to show' that if an
atom of waste has the same probability of escape as an atom of
average rock, and
if all U. S. electricity were nuclear generated for millions of years,
all of the
accumulated waste would cause less than one fatality per year in the
United States-compare
this with the 10,000 per year from the wastes of coal-burning. There are some
ways in which buried radioactive waste would be less secure than average rock, especially due to the fact that it will be thermally hot for
100-200 years; while all research to date indicates every reason for optimism,
these matters are still under investigation which contributes a grain of truth
to the statement that the technology is "yet to be
established." however
there are alternatives available regardless of how this research turns out, the
waste can be diluted or its burial can be delayed to allow the heat source to
decay away-so these studies are more for the purpose of optimum waste
repository
design than for establishment of feasibility. Moreover there are ways in which
the buried waste would he more secure than "average" rock; it would
he in a carefully selected geological environment virtually free of
ground water,
and it will probably be in a casing which would give million year
protection not
available to average rock. All in all, the one fatality per year derived above
from average rock seems like a reasonable estimate for buried radioactive
In general, Winchester loses perspective on the dangers from high level waste.
She states that it will stay poisonous "forever", but it loses 99.9%
of its toxicity after 300 years, and 99.999% after 100,000 years by which time
a 50%lethal dose would be over 6 lbs. converted into digestible form and eaten.
There are other substances we dispose of with little control, and
there are even
natural rocks, for which 1 ounce or less would he lethal, and these
truly maintain
their toxicity forever. If the waste were dumped in the ocean-no one can claim
we don't know how to do that-or buried in the sea bed, and if all of it leaked
out immediately, the U.S. waste (if all our power were nuclear) would
cause about
60 fatalities per year worldwide' through contamination of sea fond,
still hundreds
of times less than the 10,000 fatalities per year from coal burning. Incidentally,
there would he essentially no harm to ocean eco-systems from such an
eventuality.
Low-Level Waste
The low-level waste contains thousands of times less radioactivity
than the high-level
waste, is therefore less dangerous by a corresponding factor, and is
consequently
buried with considerably less care in shallow trenches. While there
was tremendous
publicity about the tiny leakages front the Kentucky and New York State burial
grounds, no member of the public was exposed to as much extra
radiation from them3
as he would get from spending two days in a brick house rather than in a wooden
house (brick contains more naturally radioactive material than wood), or from
spending 8 hours in Colorado or Wyoming where natural radiation
levels are higher
than average. The chance that a single person will ever die from
these past leaks
is about one in 100,000. The reason for this low level of damage is that only
a very tiny fraction of the buried material leaked out. However, it
can be shown'
that even if all of the radioactive material in these burial grounds were to
leak out and become distributed through the soil, and if no special attention
were paid to it there would still he only about one eventual
fatality. The point
here is that there is only about one chance in a billion each year for a given
atom in the top layers of soil to find its way into a human body, and the vast
bulk of the low-level radioactivity has a half life of less than 30 years, so
it will decay away long before it can do harm.
Incidentally, a large fraction of the low level wastes are from
hospitals and from
research laboratories, with no relevance to nuclear power.
Mill Tailings
Winchester is a bit behind the times on the issue of radon emission
from uranium
mill tailings. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed requirements for
operating mills to cover their tailings piles, and the Department of Energy has
an active program for taking care of tailings at inoperative mills. The costs
of covering tailings will be charged to the electricity consumer, but it will
increase his bill for nuclear electricity by less than 0.1%.
On the other hand, little attention has been paid to the fact that
coal contains
small amounts of uranium, and hence that the ashes from coal burning also emit
radon gas. It turns out that if the uranium mill tailings piles are
covered, the
radon problem from coal burning is considerably worse than from nuclear energy.
The radon emitted from one year's production of coal ash will cause
about 10 fatalities
over the next 500 years.
Another viewpoint on this is that nuclear energy consumes uranium and
hence reduces
the exposure of future generations to radon. This greatly exceeds the harm done
by radon from covered mill tailings so the overall effect of the
nuclear industry
is to reduce man's exposure to radon.
But if we are to worry about effects of radon, the real culprit is
energy conservation.
In insulating homes to save energy, radon emitted from the building materials
and foundations of our houses is trapped inside for twice as long as it would he without the added insulation.5 If all homes
were insulated
to recommended standards, this would cause an extra 5000-10,000 fatalities per
year in the U.S.
Intermediate and Trans-uranic Wastes
The intermediate and trans-uranic wastes discussed by Winchester are
from military
and research sources and have no relevance to nuclear power. However,
these problems
are being taken care of expeditiously and there is no reason to
believe that they
will even approach in importance the problem of high level waste
discussed above.
Airbone Emissions
The technology for controlling airborne emissions of radioactivity from nuclear
plants is in place and functioning, so there is no need to speculate
on its performance
or on the "virtuous intentions" of government programs.
Current radiation
exposures are such that there is approximately one fatality per year
in the U.S.
from this source; if all U.S. power were nuclear and if we had a complete fuel
reprocessing industry in operation, this number would rise to perhaps
20 fatalities
per year, but this is still hardly comparable to the 10,000 fatalities per year
from coal-burning air pollution.
Spent Fuel
There has never been a report of significant leakage of radioactivity into the
environment from spent fuel storage, and according to all available
information,
there is no problem expected from this source even if the fuel were stored for
30 years or more. Hopefully the government will allow reprocessing to proceed
in less than 30 years, in which case the problem disappears. It is
very difficult
to see how this problem can be even 1% as great as the problem of
airborne emissions
discussed above.
Decontamination and Decommissioning
There are now good estimates available on costs for decommissioning of nuclear
power plants, and even for the most elaborate procedures, this would
be only 10%
of the original cost of the plant. This would raise the cost of electricity by
only about 2%. The entombment or mothballing scheme mentioned by
Winchester would
reduce these costs about three-fold and it would be for only 100 years, which
is something less than "forever." The residual material
after decommissioning
would be "low-level waste" and would represent a minute addition to
the lowlevel waste problem discussed above.
Final Statement
Let me comment on the points in Winchester's last two paragraphs. On
her numbered
points:
(1) The effects of breach of waste repositories by later generations
through drilling,
mining, or bombing has been estimated and found to he less than effects of
natural releases' discussed above.
(2) It is absolutely impossible for high-level waste to get into a
configuration
that would form a nuclear reactor; there just isn't enough fissile material in
it.
(3) By the time ice sheets or other geologic processes could release the waste,
its toxicity would be very low, lower than the toxicity of the original uranium
ore mined to produce the waste. Thus our use of nuclear power alleviates this
problem.
(4) The purpose of all the research now going on is to be certain
that there are
no processes that can lead to very rapid release.
We have many more serious long term waste problems than nuclear
waste. For example,
the arsenic we import into our country each year has 10,000 times the toxicity
of one year's production of nuclear waste after 1000 years of decay. Moreover,
the arsenic is not carefully buried 2000 feet underground, but most
of it is used
as an herbicide and hence is scattered about on the surface in food
growing areas.
The arsenic, of course, will retain its toxicity forever. But of
course this problem
can never approach the problem we now have of killing 10,000 people
per year from
the air pollution of burning coal, our only alternative to nuclear power.
REFERENCES
1B. L. Cohen. "High Ievel Waste Irons Light Water Reactors,
Rev. Mod. Physics
49, 1 (1977). An improved calculation is given in B. I..
Cohen, "Analysis,
Critique, and Reevaluation of Water Intrusion Scenario
Studies". Nuclear Technology (in press)..
2 B. L. Cohen, ''Ocean Dumping of High Level Radioactive Waste",
Nuclear Technology 47. 163 (1980).
3 C. Hardin, (Kentucky Dept. of Human Resources), private
communication. He
estimates the maximum exposure to any memberer of the public from Maxey Flats
leakage as 0.1 mrem. The West Valley leakage was much smaller.
4B. L. Cohen and 11. N. Joss', ''A Generic Hazard Evaluation of loss'
Level Waste
Burial Grounds", Nuclear Technology, 11. 381 (1978)
5R. J. Rudnitz, et al, "Human Disease from Radion Exposures: The Impact
of Energy Conservation in Buildings", Lawrence Berkley Lab.
Report I, LBL-7809.
Aug., 1978..