Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Radiological Conditions of the Western Kara Sea

Assessment of the radiological impact of the dumping of radioactive waste in the Arctic Seas

Background and project set-up - Rumors surfaced in 1992 that the former Soviet Union had, for over three decades, dumped radioactive wastes in the shallow waters of the Arctic Seas. The news caused great concern in many countries, especially those having an Arctic coastline.

In early 1993 the Office of President of Russia published a document with detailed information on the past dumping operations of the former Soviet Union. According to that document, the items dumped in the Arctic Seas included six nuclear submarine reactors containing spent fuel; a shielding assembly from an icebreaker reactor containing spent fuel; ten nuclear reactors without fuel; and solid and liquid low-level waste.

The solid high- and low-level wastes were dumped in the Kara Sea, mainly in the shallow fjords of Novaya Zemlya, where the depths of the dumping sites range from 12 to 135 meters and in the Novaya Zemlya Trough at depths of up to 380 meters. Liquid low-level wastes were released in the open Barents and Kara Seas.

Project Conclusions

The Project reached a number of conclusions:

  • Monitoring has shown that releases from identified dumped objects are small and localized to the immediate vicinity of the dumping sites
  • Projected future doses to members of the public in typical local population groups arising from radioactive wastes dumped in the Kara Sea are very small, less than one microSv per year. Projected future doses to a hypothetical group of military personnel patrolling the foreshore of the fjords in which wastes have been dumped are higher, up to 4000 microSv per year but still of the same order as the average annual natural background dose
  • Doses to marine fauna are insignificant, orders of magnitude below those at which detrimental effects on fauna populations might be expected to occur
  • On radiological grounds remedial actions are not warranted.

Other Radiological issues exist that need to be addressed in Russia, but also in China and the US...in fact all development of radioactive materials for use in industrial or weapons programs yields waste that is potentially dangerous to our ecology. The simple fact is that using these elements in any form requires us to take extra effort to prevent contamination.

The Russians have a history of poor management and lack of control on their programs, but each atomic nation has had problems with waste control and preventive actions. Now that we are again looking at the increased use of nuclear power we need to take the steps necessary to protect our resources and effectively manage these materials that will require impounding for tens of thousands of years.

All in all, wind and solar may be easier to control.

Radioactive Contamination...a history of waste

Take a moment and consider how unlikely it is that the United States would shield all of the information on radioactive contamination, or even worse…a radioactive accident where more than 100000 people were contaminated so badly that more than half of them died (LD-50) and many more were left stricken by the contamination.

Now ask the question…Has this happened in the US?

On March 28, 1979, America experienced its worst nuclear accident - a partial meltdown of the reactor core at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. During the tension-packed week that followed, sketchy reports and conflicting information led to panic, and more than one hundred thousand residents, mostly children and pregnant women, fled the area.

Health Effects of Three Mile Island
Various studies on health effects, including a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, have determined the average radiation dose to individuals near Three Mile Island at the time of the meltdown was about 1 millirem - much less than the average, annual, natural background dose for residents of the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site. A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties.

Next, Has this happened in Russia (Soviet Union)? Or have they contaminated any region beyond recovery?


Russia Finally Acknowledging '57 Nuclear Disaster

MARK McDONALD / Seattle Times 7apr04

KARABOLKA, Russia - One of the world's ghastliest nuclear accidents happened just upwind of here, in a nameless atomic city that never appeared on a map, when an explosion of radioactive sludge produced a toxic plume that contaminated a quarter of a million people.

It happened in the Soviet Union on Sept. 29, 1957, but only now are the victims' voices being heard.

Communist authorities responded to the accident with a global cover-up and a scorched-earth cleanup. Even as they evacuated entire Russian communities, they sent 1,500 ethnic Tatar farmers into the hot zones to do the dirty work.

Children from fourth grade up were pressed into service. Many "young liquidators," as they came to be known, died of radiation-related diseases soon after the blast, which few people know about even today.

Finally, however, the surviving liquidators have begun winning victories in the courts. It has taken nearly half a century for Moscow to admit responsibility for the disaster, but recently, three Karabolka residents won tiny but precedent-setting judgments that give them reparations of $8 a month, plus an annual stay at a Russian spa.

The children and grandchildren of the liquidators inherited an array of health problems; they, too, have begun filing damage claims.


'Hands were bleeding'

The Karabolka farmers never were told of the dangers of the explosion at the secret nuclear lab called Mayak, "the Lighthouse." Officials said the cleanup was needed because crude oil had seeped into the fields and groundwater. Even if the villagers had been told the truth, terms such as radiation and nuclear were not part of the vocabulary in a remote village in the southern Urals in 1957.

The Karabolka children helped with nuclear triage alongside their parents. Week after week they dug up contaminated potatoes and carrots with their bare hands, then buried them in pits. They filled poisoned wells, cleaned bricks covered in radioactive soot, buried dead cattle, dismantled houses.

"Our hands were bleeding. Everybody was vomiting," said Glasha Ismagilova, 57, who was 11 at the time. "My vomit was very green. The doctor looked at it and said I had eaten too many peas, and he sent me back to work. But of course I hadn't eaten any peas at all."

The explosion would not be the only nuclear disaster to befall the area. People living along the nearby Techa River now are suing for damage caused by decades of radioactive waste-dumping in the river by Mayak engineers. That practice, begun in the late 1940s, ended only recently.

'No accident'

Experts have called the Techa district the most polluted place on Earth. Individual radiation exposures once reached the rough equivalent of four Chernobyl accidents, according to Mark Hertsgaard, a well-known investigator of accidents and exposures. The Chernobyl nuclear-reactor explosion took place April 26, 1986, in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union.

"But this was no accident," said Alexander Aklayev, director of a small Chelyabinsk hospital that studies and treats radiation diseases. "The Techa discharges were authorized."

His database, developed with help from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, is tracking 69,000 documented victims, who have been given ID cards.

Victim No. 001213 is Safia Skaripova, who has launched the first lawsuit based on what is known as "moral damages."

"I want the state to pay for killing my first son and damaging my second son," said Skaripova, 51. She was not exposed during the Mayak blast, but she grew up along the Techa, swimming in it, drinking its water, eating its fish. She says she believes her contamination by the radioactive river gave her son Valery the brain cancer that killed him at age 5 and Misha, 8, Down syndrome.

"A big group of children," Aklayev agreed, "were irradiated inside the womb."

Ismagilova spoke calmly about her own illnesses - about the new three-inch tumor on her liver, the painful crumbling of her knees and hips.

Tears started to come only when she remembered borrowing her mother's orange sun dress on that morning 47 years ago when the Mayak cleanup began. She wanted to look nice because she thought her fourth-grade class was headed off on a field trip.

They were headed, of course, to their doom. She said, "What kind of monsters would assign children to do such work?"

The secret Mayak lab, hidden in the closed city now known as Ozersk, was the epicenter of the Soviet nuclear-weapons program. Heavily guarded, Ozersk still operates full bore, and still is off limits to nonresidents.

On the afternoon of Sept. 29 that year, 70 tons of superheated atomic waste blew the lid off its concrete storage vault.

The initial cleanup lasted throughout the fall of 1957, then began again in spring of 1958 when the snows receded.

Once again, children were taken out of school to work. Almost all were Muslims, children of ethnic Tatar and Bashkir families who had lived in the area for centuries. A few hundred Russian families lived across town; these "Volga Russians" were newcomers who had gone to work in the foundries and chemical plants in the nearby industrial center of Chelyabinsk.

"But when we got there, not a single soul was left in Russian Karabolka," Ismagilova said. "They had all been evacuated and resettled."

Aklayev, the clinic director, said 10,000 people from seven villages were resettled after the blast. "No one knows why some were resettled and others were not," he said. "Even for the evacuees, though, it was too late."

Ismagilova does not accept the government's explanation that the Tatar side of her village was safe enough while the Russian side had been contaminated. She said this was genocide.

"Our farms and houses were right next to the Russians'," she said. "They lived on one side... we lived on the other side. But our families were not well-educated, so it was easier for the authorities to keep us in the dark."

Even now, more than four decades on, the irradiated fields and pastures remain dangerous and unplantable. Only 520 destitute villagers remain from an original population of 2,900.

"Almost all the people here were liquidators, but they're too old and sick to press their claims," Ismagilova said, the tears coming again. "They did the state's dirty work 45 years ago, and now they have no money. Not even enough for bread. They have no future."

So that is what we have to compare our performance to...and what we have to work with in our attempts to clean up the earth...

So what is the question?

There is some debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming, but most agree that there is a change in weather patterns that are associated with the increasing temperatures in our oceans...and which are causing a reduction in the ice sheets at our polls.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests, and making concrete. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

There are those who ask if it is man made...and if so, why are we interested in changing it? Well, that is part of the debate... Is it man made? and do we really need to change it? Or is it a natural cycle...one that will return to cooling in its cycle?

But lets put aside the question of Global Warming for a moment, as it seems to have a political connection that our Government can't seem to get past. Instead let's consider the question of pollution world wide and man's reduced ability to grow food and harvest fish, or raise stock all for the purpose of feeding the Billions of people on this planet... Pollution after all is the real issue, and if it is causing Global Warming...well, then if we reduce pollution than we will be addressing Global Warming...but in any case we need to end pollution as best we can.

And in doing that we will begin to address the scientific questions related to global weather. Oh, there is one point that I would like to put to rest. Global Warming does not mean that the world's temperature will rise, at least not every day and not immediately. Temperatures are a function of weather patterns, and what we are seeing in the Global response to Warming is that the ocean mean temperature has risen, and as a result the weather patterns are changing...heavy snow in Washington State where no snow was seen in the past, snow in Las Vegas...twice in a week...this is what the changed patterns can and are bringing... it isn't just warming, it is changed patterns that bring problems that we have not prepared for...