We still don't really know the health hazards of a nuclear accident

March 16, 2016 by Claire Corkhill, University Of Sheffield, The Conversation
Credit: Greg Webb / IAEA/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Five years after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima and 30 years after the Chernobyl accident, scientists are still disagreeing about the impact on human health – such as how many people have got cancer as a result and how dangerous the exclusion zones currently are.

In Fukushima, residents are forbidden to permanently return to their homes within the exclusion zone. And in Ukraine the city of Pripyat, 4km from Chernobyl, still remains largely deserted. While some experts have recently said that the areas surrounding these accidents are not as dangerous as previously thought, others are concerned about the high levels of remaining in plants and animals, particularly seafood.

It is true that large doses of radiation can be fatal. Marie Curie, who carried radium in her pockets, eventually died of cancer. But small doses of radiation are all around us, every day. They are measured in millisieverts (mSv). The average person in the UK receives a dose of 2.7 mSv per year (or 7.8 mSv per year if you happen to live on top of granite in Cornwall, which emits radon gas).

A transatlantic flight will give you a dose of 0.08 mSv from . Even eating a humble banana will expose you to 0.001 mSv of radiation, from the tiny amount of radioactive potassium inside. But it is only really when you are exposed to annual radiation doses of more than 1,000 mSv that things start to get a bit hairy.

Chernobyl sign. Credit: D. Markosian/wikimedia

The type of radiation you are exposed to matters too. Some types only cause severe damage when ingested (lodged in the stomach or lungs). Other types can penetrate the body from outside, putting you at risk just walking by the source.

In the case of an accident, we have to take into account what sort of radiation is released – and how much – to take the right precautions. When radioactive gas from the Three Mile Island reactor in the US was released after an accident in 1979, people were advised to stay indoors and to keep farm animals under cover. Later, pregnant women within a 20-mile radius of the reactor were recommended to evacuate. Within three weeks, 98% of the evacuees had returned. These were sensible precautions – after 18 years of monitoring, no unusual health trends were reported. People only received an average dose of 0.08 mSv.

In the far more severe Chernobyl accident, radioactive elements including iodine-131 and cesium-137 were spread by graphite fires across a wide area. People in the vicinity of the fires (mainly firefighters) were exposed to fatal doses of radiation (300,000 mSv per hour). Nearly a third of them died in the months following the accidents.

But for people who have lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine at some point since the accident it is more difficult to estimate the impact. They have received relatively low doses of radiation over a long time, estimated as 1 mSv per year on average. While there was an initial spike in thyroid cancer cases, it is difficult to work out whether other cancers in this population are due to radiation or other lifestyle factors.

So is Chernobyl now safe? If you take a tour of it today, expect radiation doses of 0.2 to 20 mSv per hour depending on how close to the reactor you go. The levels of radioactivity from radioactive cesium and strontium have already dropped by half – and in 30 years time they will half again. After ten "half-lives" (300 years) the radioactivity would decayed to normal background levels.

Abandoned playpark in Pripyat. Credit: Robarmstrong2/pixabay

Relocation versus radiation

But the effect of radiation is not everything. More than 116,000 people from the area surrounding Chernobyl were evacuated but about 1,200 refused. These so-called "Babushkas of Chernobyl", all over 40 at the time of the accident, defiantly ignored the law and decided to take their chances against the radiation rather than being displaced from their beloved homes and communities. More than 200 of these remain living in the area today.

And perhaps they were right to stay – the World Health Organisation (WHO) cites relocation from Chernobyl as a cause of stress, anxiety, mental illness and "medically unexplained physical symptoms". To this day, we do not know the true cost of relocation on lives because it was not formally measured.

The radioactive fallout at Fukushima was less than 10% of that at Chernobyl. A number of scientists have suggested the evacuation was therefore too cautious. Others recommend that the acceptable radiation dose to the public set by international organisations is too conservative and could be significantly increased without causing harm.

There seems to be little evidence to suggest that lower doses of radiation causes a big risk. It has even been suggested that the body may have some sort of cellular repair mechanisms to deal with lower doses. The problem is we simply just don't know for sure – the only way to find out is to study the people who have been exposed to these low doses over their entire lives, an enormous task that not everyone is willing to take part in.

The people of Fukushima, except those in the worst contaminated areas, will eventually be encouraged to return to their homes. In the absence of better understanding, scientific and political arguments about how safe the radiation levels are will continue. What is abundantly clear, though, is that we need to understand the comparative health effects of radiation versus relocation. Developing a new approach in our response to nuclear accidents and the decisions that are made in their immediate aftermath is vital so that we can avoid unnecessary panic and evacuation – something virtually all scientists agree on.

Explore further: 'Acceptable risk' is a better way to think about radiation exposure in Fukushima

Related Stories

Fukushima radiation mostly within accepted levels: WHO

May 23, 2012

Radiation affecting residents in Japan's Fukushima prefecture since the nuclear plant disaster is below the reference level for public exposure in all but two areas, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

Radiation causes blindness in wild animals in Chernobyl

February 10, 2016

This year marks 30 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Vast amounts of radioactive particles spread over large areas in Europe. These particles, mostly Cesium-137, cause a low but long-term exposure to ionizing radiation ...

Recommended for you

New studies take a second look at coral bleaching culprit

December 7, 2016

Scientists have called superoxide out as the main culprit behind coral bleaching: The idea is that as this toxin build up inside coral cells, the corals fight back by ejecting the tiny energy- and color-producing algae living ...

Cosmic dust found in city rooftop gutters

December 7, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers with Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum in London, Project Stardust in Norway and Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, has found samples of cosmic dust in the ...

10 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
I suggest we increase the radiation to the scientists to really see if it causes no harm, before we send others back.

Meanwhile, we can all look up Chernobyl Children.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2016
http://www.dw.com...19111457

It even kills the robots. Let's send in rolf and Willie.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2016
http://apjjf.org/...ano.html

"The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster is a Serious Crime": Interview with Koide Hiroaki 福島核災害は明らかに深刻な犯罪である—小出裕章氏に聞く -

See more at: http://apjjf.org/...ano.html#sthash.ylC6AEoi.dpuf
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Mar 16, 2016
Yeah yeah - more nukes, more melt downs...

Really cool.....

https://www.youtu...5gWzkXMA
veggielady
not rated yet Mar 16, 2016
No mention of the population most at risk, even for small doses are the unborn, babies and children.

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

What is abundantly clear is the nuclear energy industry spins the facts, places profits before people and wants to continue to make more of the most hazardous waste known to mankind, for which they have NO solution other than to leave it for future generations to figure it out!

Stop the nuke con job!

tommo
not rated yet Mar 16, 2016
Consider that with low-level radiation it's not the concentration that matters only the "event' of ingesting/inhaling/absorbing a hot-particle or hot-isotope thus rather insuring a cancer to near 100% reliability with such installed next to a cell.

Thus diffusion is only dealing with odds not "protection" from such cancers.

The nominal estimate is 1,000,000 deaths from Fukushima locally in Japan minimum as the contamination is "swept under the rug" as dust.

We do know from Hiroshima-Nagasaki-Chernobyl-3mileIsland that radiation does not go away in human terms the risk.

Deal with it for centuries now as with anthropogenic global warming from fossil fuel emissions in the main.

At 400-ppm we are committed to 22-25m of sea-level rise who cares how long it takes you signed the contract, eh?
Caliban
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
Originally published in The Conversation.

A publication universally acclaimed for its presentation of rigorous, peer-reviewed science research.

WTFF is this blog post doing in PHYSorg?
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 20, 2016
Consider that with low-level radiation it's not the concentration that matters only the "event' of ingesting/inhaling/absorbing a hot-particle or hot-isotope thus rather insuring a cancer to near 100% reliability with such installed next to a cell.

Thus diffusion is only dealing with odds not "protection" from such cancers.


But that's bullshit.

A radioactive particle lodged next to a cell is not a 100% chance for cancer. Most would-be cancer cells actually commit automatic suicide because they have mechanisms exactly for that purpose, and others are destroyed by your own immune system - there are myriads of other sources of DNA damage that would otherwise cause us to pop in tumors all the time.

In fact you do probably have some cancer cells in your body right now, but they don't develop into tumors because they either die of their own due to the same damage that caused them to become cancerous, or get eaten by lymphocytes.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 20, 2016
Furthermore, as a radioactive particle releases its radiation, it decays - it becomes a less-radioactive particle, or if it's a single atom of some radioactive isotope it actually transmutes into a non-radioactive element.

To turn a cell into cancer, the radioactivity has to be intense enough to first overcome the DNA repair mechnism of the cell, then it has to damage the DNA in a specific way that doesn't entirely cripple the cell and cause it to die immediately, and it also has to specifically disable the apoptosis mechanism that would cause the cell to suicide. But that's still not a cancer cell, because the DNA damage must also cause it to self-replicate, and then it has to evade the immune system by pretending to be a normal cell somehow.

There's so many things that have to go just right for a cell to turn into cancer that you can have a "hot particle" in your lungs for multiple lifetimes and not get it. In fact you already have radioactive Potassium-40 in you.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.