Increased levels of background radiation may lead to increased levels of cancer and genetic diseases and an acceleration of the aging process (Credit: Kordian via Flickr).
As I write, the temperature inside Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor is slowly rising because the crucial cooling system has failed. Perhaps by the time you read this, another meltdown will have occurred, coughing radioactive isotopes into the air and around the globe. We can anticipate an increase in cancer cases in the coming decades as radiation levels increase worldwide, including here in Canada.
It's no surprise that a catastrophe like this would eventually occur, even in a highly developed country like Japan. The process that occurs inside a nuclear reactor is similar to the slow, controlled detonation of a nuclear bomb. When this control is lost, a meltdown can occur, as happened in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and now Fukushima.
Could it happen here? The nuclear industry and our government attempt to reassure us that it could not, even though the world's first nuclear reactor meltdown occurred in Canada at Chalk River, Ontario, in 1952. We are told nuclear energy is affordable, clean and reliable and that our reactors can withstand any force of nature, as I'm sure the Japanese people were also told. Comments abound about the benefits of nuclear energy, minimizing its dangers. I have been astounded at some myths about radiation and health, some of which I have listed here:
Myth 1: A nuclear accident could never happen in Canada.
Never say never. The Three Mile Island meltdown was also thought to be impossible, as was the recent BP oil disaster and even the sinking of the Titanic. When will we learn that we can't control everything and that humans are not infallible? Our Earth is experiencing more natural disasters of increasing magnitude. A nuclear accident caused by nature, human error or terrorist attack may be unlikely, but as we see in Japan, the consequences can be catastrophic.
Myth 2: No one has ever died as a result of nuclear energy in Canada.
We know that there is no safe level of radioactivity (despite all the talk of levels in Japan being safe), that radiation causes cancer, particularly leukemia, and that children are more vulnerable to its effects than adults. A convincing study done in 2008 in Germany provides strong evidence that children living near nuclear reactors have an increased risk of developing leukemia 2. Other studies indicate elevated risks of other cancers and birth defects 1, 3 in people living near nuclear facilities. Most Canadian reactors are situated close to the most densely populated area in the country. Imagine the millions of refugees left homeless, with all the attendant health issues they would have, if we had to evacuate an area even 100 kilometres from the Pickering nuclear reactor.
Myth 3: Radiation is naturally occurring, so we don't need to worry about adding to "background" levels.
Increased levels of background radiation may lead to increased levels of cancer and genetic diseases and an acceleration of the aging process. We have been gradually adding to background levels with the above-ground weapons testing of the 1950s and accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. We are steadily creating, in our reactors and our bombs, highly radioactive fission products, some with very long half-lives. Each increment adds to our health burdens and those of our descendants.
Myth 4: The isotopes emitted by the Fukushima plant have short half-lives so do not pose a long-term health concern.
This is not true. Some isotopes emitted from spent reactor fuel have very long half-lives, such as plutonium 239, a human-made product of nuclear reactors that is not found in nature. It has a half life of 24,000 years, which means that it will persist in the environment for 240,000 years, an unfathomable length of time. Radioactive isotopes with short half-lives are also dangerous. Iodine-131, with a half-life of eight days, causes thyroid cancer. Xenon-137, with a half-life of four minutes, decays to cesium-137, which concentrates in muscle, causing muscle cancers. Krypton-90, with a half-life of 33 seconds, decays to become strontium-90, which concentrates in bone, causing bone tumours and leukemias. These isotopes are harmful whether the isotopes have long or short half-lives.
Myth 5: Beyond the immediate area of the Fukushima plant, levels of radiation are not a concern, and certainly could never reach North America at levels that could affect our health.
The radioactive plume from Japan containing cesium-137, iodine-131 and other toxic elements has been detected in Newfoundland and as far away as Sweden. Radioactivity is now measurable in cow's milk and water samples in the United States. So far, the levels of radiation that have been detected are low, but we are fooling ourselves to think the disaster in Fukushima will not eventually affect our health here in North America.
Myth 6: Nuclear energy has nothing to do with nuclear war.
Plutonium and tritium, both waste products of nuclear generation, are the substances used in nuclear bombs, posing major risks if they are acquired by terrorists. Did you know that until 1965 all the uranium produced in Canada was exported to the U.S. and used for weapons, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs? It was Canada's CANDU reactor technology that aided India in the testing of its first nuclear bomb. Nuclear energy is inextricably linked to nuclear weapons.
The tragedy in Fukushima has caused people worldwide to rethink the use of nuclear energy as Japan scrambles to cool the reactors that continue to melt down. Canadians continue to be given misinformation about this industry and how inexpensive, clean and safe it is. Doctors and nurses who have comforted a child dying of cancer, or relatives facing the death of a loved one, know well the human cost of illness. The nuclear energy industry is causing and will continue to cause cancer and other serious illnesses as long as it is allowed to continue. It will also perpetuate the threat of nuclear war. Investing in conservation and alternative energy instead of nuclear power is better for the health of our planet. This is an opportune time, with an election pending, and Fukushima poised for a major meltdown possibly as catastrophic as Chernobyl, for us to say no to nuclear energy.
References
1 Durham Region Health Department. Radiation and Health in Durham Region 2007. Whitby Ontario. Regional Municipality of Durham
2 Leukemia in Young Children Living in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants. Spix, Schmeidel, Kaatsch, Schulze-Rath, Blettner. 2008
3 Tritium Releases from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Birth Defects and Infant Mortality in Nearby Communities 1971-1988. Johnson, Rouleau. 1991
Dr. Cathy Vakil is a family doctor in Kingston Ontario, and an assistant professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Queen's University. She is an active board member of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and of Physicians for Global Survival.
Post a comment
3 Comments
12:46 PM
It makes me really angry that the government of Canada is planning to axe 700 jobs from Environment Canada at a time when we need to look into really critical environmental issues.. I am also really disturbed that Health Canada has not published recent statistics on radiation data. In light of radiation coming from Japan’s damaged nuclear reactors, I would say the government has done absolutely nothing to allay the public’s fears that radiation levels might be alarming high and will continue as along as Japanese technology cannot prevent the leak and radiation of highly toxic materials. The government has done nothing to tell the public about the true dangers of substances like plutonium, strontium, etc. as well as the many other toxic isotopes.
10:38 AM
You say “we know there is no safe level of radioactivity”, yet you admit there is such a thing as “background” radiation. If I travel 500 miles from where I live outside Seattle, I will increase my exposure to this “background” radiation by many orders of magnitude greater than if I were to move to just outside the nuclear reactor that is located in this state of Washington, i.e. the Columbia Generating Station. You say “convincing” evidence exists that the tiny elevated level of radioactivity that is added to the natural background radiation at the border of the Columbia Generating Station is the hazard, not the five times the average US background radiation level that occurs in Spokane Washington.
Its your case that is unconvincing.
The main cause of increased average exposure to radiation in the US is the increasing use of medical radiation. See the NCRP. Studies have suggested that a lot of this is due to “defensive” medicine, where doctors order unnecessary tests so their patients won’t invent a cause to sue them later for not going the extra mile in trying to achieve a diagnosis. Another way to put this is to say we’re glowing in the dark because our doctors are afraid of our lawyers. Medical radiation inflicted on patients by your chosen profession, on average, now exceeds average background, a revolutionary change in the amount of radiation that humans are exposed to since humans have been on earth, this means nothing to you, what you think should be highlighted is the miniscule addition to total average radiation exposure generated by the total activities of the nuclear power industry.
Ten years of the most aggressive solar subsidies in the world got Germany an amount of electricity about the same order of magnitude as what one nuclear reactor puts out. Yet anti nuclear types such as you cheer on the efforts of anti nuclear types there to close all of their reactors. Examine the written policy statements of the world’s largest environmental organization, the Sierra Club: all of their anti nuclear policy predates their first consideration of what they then called “the enhanced greenhouse effect”. As awareness of how serious climate change is dawns on more and more people, you argue the basic case against nuclear does not need to be reexamined. Keep your head in the sand — what with all the rest of the people there we’ll have no trouble ending this age of life with climate change and maybe we can even kill off civlization itself.
10:42 PM
Good article, but the title and contents are different. Would be better if titled Myths of Radiation or something. I was actually looking for information on how to protect myself from radiation. That’s how I found the title misleading.
The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »