by Molly Martin –
Desirable because it’s mainly carbon neutral [1], many look at nuclear power as a way forward, but with nuclear power comes great environmental risks. Though the risk of a nuclear accident maybe unlikely, the consequences of that risk are dire and can have lasting impacts. Even thousands of miles away, in Denmark for example 1967.9km away from Chernobyl (as shown in figure 1), the effects of the radiation still impacted upon the environment, increasing radiation levels in mushrooms up to 13000 Bq/kg [2] (Bq means Becquerels; a unit of measure for radioactivity), more than triple the threshold for safe food consumption set by the European Union (600Bq/kg) [2]. Radiation from Chernobyl effected multiple countries as well as its own, impacting upon a variety of flora and fauna [2] showing just how the impacts of nuclear accidents can last years after the event itself. So, is a move to nuclear energy for a less carbon polluting source really worth it?
Figure 1: Map showing the distance between Denmark and Chernobyl, showing just how far the effects of radiation can impact.
San Jose (map), Hayden120 (retouch) – Derivative work of Europe countries map en.png by San Jose, based on the Generic Mapping Tools and ETOPO2, CC BY-SA 3.0
Of course, the effects of nuclear accidents on humans are horrendous but we often only demand and work for plans/policies when there’s a nuclear accident, or the anniversary of one, that triggers our want for effective protocol [2]. This is not an efficient way to create plans to reduce risks, or to understand the effects of a disaster. Nuclear accidents have detrimental impacts upon both humans and the environment. Radiation can cause both short- and long-term effects on living organisms. [3] Short term effects can include increased damage to DNA, these physical effects can have massive impacts upon species because they can cause reproductive failure, such as from embryo mortality. For example, 25% of female barn swallows in contaminated areas will not be able to reproduce because of the effects of radiation [3]. Figure 2 shows a mother Barn Swallow feeding its baby, one of the most natural processes witnessed in the world that occurs across species. A process that birds living in contaminated areas will no longer be able to undertake. Imagine the impact that could have on the barn swallow population. This problem could occur for any species, the effects being more detrimental if they impact upon a rarer kind. This is why, in my opinion, the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the potential consequences of a nuclear accident, especially when you consider other sources of power that are carbon neutral, such as solar energy.
Renewable sources of energy are used relatively little compared to non-renewable sources, for example in 2007 only 5% of global electricity was produced by renewable sources. [4] There are other ways to have a largely carbon neutral power source without it being nuclear, for example tidal energy provides a renewable source that produces no carbon emissions. It’s important for policy makers, and the public, to understand the consequences that nuclear power may bring for humans and the environment. I would say that potential mutations in organisms, such as around Chernobyl where mutation levels have increased from factor 2 to 20 [3], and other damaging factors exceed the potential positives nuclear power could bring. Focus should shift to less potentially damaging sources of power, like renewable, that are equally as carbon neutral.
Figure 2: A Barn Swallow flying in to feed its baby that relies on the mother for food. Photo by Laitche, CC BY-SA 4.0
—
References
[1] Muradov, N.Z. Veziroglu, T.N. (2008) International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. “Green” path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-neutral technologies, 33(23), 6804-6839. Sciencedirect. [Accessed 1 December 2020].
[2] Wehrden, H.V. Fischer, J. Brandt, P. Wagner, V. Kummerer, K. Juemmerle, T. Nagel, A. Olsson, O. Hostert, P. (2011) Conservation Letters. Consequences of nuclear accidents for biodiversity and ecosystem services, 5(2), 81-89. Conbio.onlinelibrary. [Accessed 1 December 2020].
[3] Moller, A.P. Nishiumi, I. Suzuki, H. Ueda, K. Mousseau, T.A. (2013) Ecological Indicators. Differences in effects of radiation on abundance of animals in Fukushima and Chernobyl, 24, 75-81. Sciencedirect. [Accessed 1 December 2020].
[4] Muradov, N.Z. Veziroglu, T.N. (2008) International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. “Green” path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-neutral technologies, 33(23), 6804-6839. Sciencedirect. [Accessed 1 December 2020].
