Effects of Nuclear Waste Mostly Negative for Life Nuclear Waste is generally a variety of solids,liquids and gases which

h are produced during the generation of nuclear energy during fission,mining of uranium,nuclear research and weapons production. They are normally classified as low-level, medium-level or high-level wastes, according to the amount and types of radioactivity in them.Nuclear Waste is radioactive and that is the primary cause of the negative effects on human health and bodies.Note Radiation in small amounts do not cause any lasting damage as humans are exposed to natural radiation from radioactive deposits occurring naturally beneath the earth.However large doses or prolonged exposure to moderate radiation can lead to permanent problems and even lead to death.Note Nuclear Storage Policies are a complete mess around the world with no permanent geological sites being approved.One of the primary reasons for the radioactive emission from the damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant was the storage of spent fuel rods in pools near the Nuclear Reactors.The dangers of Radiation from Nuclear Waste are not negligible with thousands of tons being transported over land and sea and thousands being stored in temporary structures. Stochastic Health Effects Stochastic effects are associated with long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure to radiation. (Stochastic refers to the likelihood that something will happen.) Increased levels of exposure make these health effects more likely to occur, but do not influence the type or severity of the effect.Cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure.Other stochastic effects also occur. Radiation can cause changes in DNA, the blueprints that ensure cell repair and replacement produces a perfect copy of the original cell. Changes in DNA are called mutations.

Non-Stochastic Health Effects Non-stochastic effects appear in cases of exposure to high levels of radiation, and become more severe as the exposure increases. Shortterm, high-level exposure is referred to as acute exposure.Medical patients receiving radiation treatments often experience acute effects, because they are receiving relatively high bursts of radiation during treatment.

Unsafe Amounts of Radiation Exposure Health Effect (rem) 5-10 50 55 70 75 90 100 400 1,000 changes in blood chemistry nausea fatigue vomiting hair loss diarrhea hemorrhage possible death destruction of intestinal lining internal bleeding and death

Time to Onset (without treatment)

hours

2-3 weeks

within 2 months

1-2 weeks

Exposure Health Effect (rem) 2,000 damage to central nervous system loss of consciousness; and death

Time to Onset (without treatment)

minutes hours to days

Source EPA Summary Nuclear Waste Effect is highly negative to life particularly human beings if it is not transported and stored carefully.Radiation has both short term and long term effects on human health as is visible during cancer treatments like chemotherapy.The inadequate policy handling of Nuclear Waste in almost all countries has made Nuclear Waste a buring issue.The high costs and difficulty in find Nuclear Storage Sites has made the decision makers go into a state of coma with regards to Nuclear Waste Policy.Obama has canceled funding to Yucca mountain after more than 30 years since it was conceived.The 60,000 tons of Nuclear Waste on USA soil are a potential source of disaster.

Radiation facts and health effects What is radiation? Radiation is a form of energy. It comes from man-made sources such as x-ray machines, from the sun and outer space, and from some radioactive materials such as uranium in soil. Radiation travels as rays, waves or energetic particles through air, water or solid materials.

Radioactive materials are composed of atoms that are unstable. As unstable atoms become stable, they release excess energy (called "radiation") through a process called radioactive decay or radioactivity. The time required for a radioactive substance to lose 50 percent of its activity by decay is called its half-life. The most common types of radiation emissions are alpha, beta and gamma rays. Alpha particles can be shielded by a sheet of paper or by human skin. But if materials that emit alpha particles are inhaled, ingested or enter your body through a cut in your skin, they can be very harmful. Beta particles cannot be stopped by a sheet of paper. Some beta particles can be stopped by human skin, but some need a thicker shield (like wood) to stop them. Just like alpha particles, beta particles can also cause serious damage to your health if they are inhaled or swallowed. For example, some materials that emit beta particles might be absorbed into your bones and cause damage if ingested. Gamma rays are the most penetrating of these three types of radiation. Gamma rays will penetrate paper, skin, wood, and other substances. Like alpha and beta particles, they are also harmful if inhaled, ingested or absorbed. To protect yourself from gamma rays, you need a shield at least as thick as a concrete wall. This type of radiation causes severe damage to your internal organs. (X-rays fall into this category, but they are less penetrating than gamma rays.) How can I be exposed to radiation? Small quantities of radioactive materials occur naturally in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and in our own bodies. People receive some background radiation exposure each day from the sun, from radioactive elements in soil and rocks, from household

appliances (such as television sets and microwave ovens), and from medical and dental x-rays. Even the human body itself emits radiation. These levels of natural and background radiation are normal. Radiation doses that people receive are measured in units called "rem" or "sievert." (One sievert equals 100 rem.) Scientists estimate that the average person in the United States receives a dose of about one-third of a rem per year. Eighty percent of typical human exposure comes from natural sources, such as sunlight. The remaining 20% comes from artificial radiation sources, primarily medical x-rays. What are the health effects of exposure to radiation? Radiation's health effects can be mild, such as reddening of the skin, or very serious, such as cancer or early death. Radioactive materials dispersed in an urban area pose a serious health hazard. Strong sources of gamma rays can cause acute radiation poisoning or even fatalities at high doses. Long-term exposure to low levels of gamma radiation can cause cancer. Alpha particles (such as americium) small enough to be inhaled can damage people's lungs and lead to an increased risk of cancer. The degree of damage to the human body depends on:

The amount of radiation absorbed by the body (the dose) The type of radiation The route of exposure The length of time a person is exposed Exposure to very large doses of radiation may cause death within a few days or months. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), or radiation sickness, is usually caused when much of the human body is exposed to a high dose of radiation over the course of a few minutes. Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs and firefighters responding to

the Chernobyl nuclear power plant event in 1986 experienced ARS. The immediate symptoms of ARS are nausea, vomiting and diarrhea; later, bone marrow depletion may lead to weight loss, loss of appetite, flulike symptoms, infection and bleeding. The survival rate depends on the radiation dose. For those who do survive, recovery may take a few weeks to two years. Exposure to lower doses of radiation may lead to an increased risk of cancer, cataracts or decreased fertility. Radiation exposure, like exposure to the sun, is cumulative. The damage from exposure to radiation may not be apparent for many years. Children are more sensitive to radiation than adults. Exposure to human embryos or fetuses is of special concern because they are extremely sensitive to radiation. How can I protect myself from radiation? The longer a person is exposed to radiation and the closer the person is to the source of radiation, the greater the risk. There are three basic ways to reduce your exposure:

Time: Decrease the amount of time you spend near the source of radiation. Distance: Increase your distance from the radiation source Shielding: Increase the shielding between you and the radiation source. Shielding is anything that creates a barrier between people and the radiation source. Depending on the type of radiation, effective shielding can be something as thin as a plate of window glass or may need to be as thick as several feet of concrete. Being inside a building or a vehicle can provide shielding from some kinds of radiation.

Remember that any protection, however temporary, is better than none at all. The more shielding, distance and time you can take advantage of, the better. Although radiation cannot be detected by the senses (sight, smell, etc.), scientists can detect even the smallest levels of radiation with a range of instruments. Will potassium iodide protect me? Taking potassium iodide (KI) pills for protection against a dirty bomb is not recommended. These tablets, now widely available, are promoted by commercial companies for defense against everything from a nuclear plant accident to a dirty bomb explosion. However, KI pills are not likely to offer protection from the radiation spread by a dirty bomb and could actually be harmful to people's health. KI pills help protect the thyroid gland from the damaging effects of radioactive iodine, but they are of no help if the dirty bomb contains any other form of ionizing radiation. There are many other radioactive sources that could be used instead of, or along with, radioactive iodine, and KI tablets would be useless against them. Many people could also be harmed by the high concentration of iodine in KI because of allergies or other conditions. What are some sources and uses of radioactive materials? Radioactive materials are widely used in hospitals, research labs, industry and construction sites for such things as diagnosing and treating illnesses, sterilizing equipment, and irradiating food. Radioactive byproduct material in the United States is regulated by either state or federal laws. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, together with 32 states which regulate radioactive material, have over 21,000 organizations licensed to use such materials for these purposes. Other man-made radioactive materials come from nuclear power and weapons sites. In the United States, radioactive waste is located at

more than 70 commercial nuclear power sites in 31 states. Enormous quantities also exist overseas, especially in Europe and Japan. Medical procedures, including diagnostic X-rays, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy, make up the most significant source of man-made radiation exposure to the general public. Other legal uses of radioactive materials include industrial radiography, manufacture of gauging devices, gas chromatography, and well logging. It is used in consumer products such as smoke detectors (americium), "exit" signs, static eliminators, and luminous watch dials. Some examples of radioactive materials are cesium, americium, plutonium, and strontium.

Environmental impact of nuclear power From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear power activities involving the environment; mining, enrichment, generation and geological disposal. The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle, operation, and the effects of nuclear accidents. The routine health risks and greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear fission power are small relative to those associated with coal, oil and gas and comparable to hydro power. As with hydro power, there is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment

fails,[1] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment. The public is sensitive to these risks and there has been considerable public opposition to nuclear power. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and 1986 Chernobyl disaster, along with high construction costs, ended the rapid growth of global nuclear power capacity.[1] A further disastrous release of radioactive materials followed the 2011 Japanese tsunami which damaged the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in hydrogen gas explosions and partial meltdowns classified as a Level 7 event. The large scale release of radioactivity resulted in people being evacuated from a 20 km exclusion zone set up around the power plant, similar to the 30 km radius Chernobyl Exclusion Zone still in effect.

[edit]Waste streams Nuclear power has at least four waste streams that may harm the environment:[2] 1. they create spent nuclear fuel at the reactor site (including plutonium waste) 2. they produce tailings at uranium mines and mills 3. during operation they can release small amounts of radioactive isotopes 4. during accidents they can release large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials The nuclear fuel cycle involves some of the most dangerous elements and isotopes known to humankind, including more than 100 dangerous radionuclides and carcinogens such as strontium90, iodine 131 and cesium -137, which are the same toxins found in the fall out of nuclear weapons".[3]

Radioactive waste Main article: Radioactive waste High-level waste See also: High-level radioactive waste management and Deep geological repository Around 2030 tons of high-level waste are produced per year per nuclear reactor.[4] The world's nuclear fleet creates about 10,000 metric tons of high-level spent nuclear fuel each year.[5] Several methods have been suggested for final disposal of high-level waste, including deep burial in stable geological structures, transmutation, and removal to space. So far, none of these methods have been implemented.[6] There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep underground repositories",[7] but no country in the world has yet opened such a site.[7][8][9][10][11] There are some 65,000 tons of nuclear waste now in temporary storage throughout the U.S., but in 2009, President Obama "halted work on a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, following years of controversy and legal wrangling".[12] Nuclear reprocessing may reduce the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[13] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[14] Nine U.S. states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power" until a long-term storage solution emerges.[15]

Other waste Moderate amounts of low-level waste are produced through chemical and volume control system (CVCS). This includes gas, liquid, and solid waste produced through the process of purifying the water through evaporation. Liquid waste is reprocessed continuously, and gas waste is filtered, compressed, stored to allow decay, diluted, and then discharged. The rate at which this is allowed is regulated and studies must prove that such discharge does not violate dose limits to a member of the public. Solid waste can be disposed of simply by placing it where it will not be disturbed for a few years. There are three low-level waste disposal sites in the United States in South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.[16] Solid waste from the CVCS is combined with solid radwaste that comes from handling materials before it is buried off-site.[17] Power plant emissions Radioactive gases and effluents

The Grafenrheinfeld Nuclear Power Plant. The tallest structure is the chimney that releases effluent gases. Most commercial nuclear power plants release gaseous and liquid radiological effluents into the environment as a byproduct of the Chemical Volume Control System, which are monitored in the US by the EPA and the NRC. Civilians living within 50 miles (80 km) of a nuclear power plant typically receive about 0.1 Sv per

year.[18] For comparison, the average person living at or above sea level receives at least 260 Sv from cosmic radiation.[18] The total amount of radioactivity released through this method depends on the power plant, the regulatory requirements, and the plant's performance. Atmospheric dispersion models combined with pathway models are employed to accurately approximate the dose to a member of the public from the effluents emitted. Effluent monitoring is conducted continuously at the plant. Limits for the Canadian plants are shown below: Regulatory limits on Radioactive Gaseous Effluents from Canadian Nuclear Power Plants [19] Iodine- Noble 131 Gases (TBqMeVc 104) Carbon14

Effluent

Tritium

Particulates

Units

(TBqb (TBq) 104)

(TBq)

(TBq 103)

Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating 43.0 Station Bruce Nuclear Generating 38.0 Station A

9.9

7.3

5.2

3.3

1.2

25.0

2.7

2.8

Bruce B Darlington

47.0 21.0

1.3 0.6

61.0 21.0

4.8 4.4

3.0 1.4

Pickering Nuclear Generating 34.0 Station A Pickering B Gentilly-2 34.0 44.0

2.4

8.3

5.0

8.8

2.4 1.3

8.3 17.0

5.0 1.9

8.8 0.91

Effluent emissions for Nuclear power in the United States are regulated by 10 CFR 50.36(a)(2). For detailed information, consult the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's database. Tritium Effluent Limits Country Australia Finland WHO Limit (Bq/L) 76,103 30,000 10,000

Switzerland Russia Ontario, Canada United States European Union California Public Health Goal

10,000 7,700 7,000 740 1001 14.8

Tritium A leak of radioactive water at Vermont Yankee in 2010, along with similar incidents at more than 20 other US nuclear plants in recent years, has kindled doubts about the reliability, durability, and maintenance of aging nuclear installations in the United States.[20] Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that emits a lowenergy beta particle and is usually measured in becquerels (i.e. atoms decaying per second) per liter (Bq/L). Tritium becomes dissolved in ordinary water when released from a nuclear plant. The primary concern for tritium release is the presence in drinking water, in addition to biological magnification leading to tritium in crops and animals consumed for food.[21] Legal concentration limits have differed greatly to place to place (see table right). For example, in June 2009 the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council recommended lowering the limit from 7,000 Bq/L to 20 Bq/L.[22] According to the NRC, tritium is the least dangerous radionuclide because it emits very weak radiation

and leaves the body relatively quickly. The typical human body contains roughly 3,700 Bq of potassium-40. The amount released by any given plant also varies greatly; the total release for plants in the United States in 2003 was at least counted to be 0 and at most 2,080 curies (77 TBq). Uranium mining Uranium mining can use large amounts of water for example, the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia uses 35,000 m of water each day and plans to increase this to 150,000 m per day.[23] Risk of cancer See also: Nuclear power debate#Health effects on population near nuclear power plants and workers There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. A widely cited 2007 meta-analysis by Baker et al. of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care.[24] It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain.[25] However this study has been criticized on several grounds - such as combining heterogeneous data (different age groups, sites that were not nuclear power plants, different zone definitions), arbitrary selection of 17 out of 37 individual studies, exclusion of sites with zero observed cases or deaths, etc.[26][27] Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study by Kaatsch et al. that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany.[24] This study has also been criticised on several grounds.[27][28] These 2007 and 2008 results are not consistent with many other studies that have tended not to show such associations.[25][29][30][31][32] The British Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment

issued a study in 2011 of children under five living near 13 nuclear power plants in the UK during the period 1969-2004. The committee found that children living near power plants in Britain are no more likely to develop leukemia than those living elsewhere[27] Comparison to coal-fired generation In terms of net radioactive release, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) estimated the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons. With 154 coal plants in the United States, this amounts to emissions of 0.6319 TBq per year for a single plant. In terms of dose to a human living nearby, it is sometimes cited that coal plants release 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear plants. This comes from NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95 which estimated the dose to the population from 1000 MWe coal and nuclear plants at 4.9 man-Sv/year and 0.048 man-Sv/year respectively (a typical Chest x-ray gives a dose of about 0.06 mSv for comparison).[33] The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an added dose of 0.3 Sv per year for living within 50 miles (80 km) of a coal plant and 0.009 milli-rem for a nuclear plant for yearly radiation dose estimation.[34] Nuclear power plants in normal operation emit less radioactivity than coal power plants.[33][34] Unlike coal-fired or oil-fired generation, nuclear power generation does not directly produce any sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or mercury (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for 24,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. alone[35]). However, as with all energy sources, there is some pollution associated with support activities such as mining, manufacturing and transportation. A major European Union funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the environmental and health costs of

nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was 0.0019/kWh. This is lower than that of many renewable sources including the environmental impact caused by biomassuse and the manufacture of photovoltaic solar panels, and was over thirty times lower than coals impact of 0.06/kWh, or 6 cents/kWh. However the energy source of the lowest external costs associated with it was found to be wind power at 0.0009/kWh, which is an environmental and health impact just under half the price of Nuclear power.[36] [Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions Proponents argue that the problems of nuclear waste "do not come anywhere close" to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[37][38] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[39] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[40] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. [41] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[42] TheWorld Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[43] However, the nuclear power industry relies on uranium mining, which itself is a hazardous industry, with many accidents and fatalities.[44]

Waste heat

The North Anna plant uses direct exchange cooling into an artificial lake. As with some thermal power stations, nuclear plants exchange 60 to 70% of their thermal energy by cycling with a body of water or by evaporating water through a cooling tower. This thermal efficiency is somewhat lower than that of coal fired power plants,[45][46] thus creating more waste heat. The cooling options are typically once-through cooling with river or sea water, pond cooling, or cooling towers. Many plants have anartificial lake like the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant or the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station. Shearon Harris uses a cooling tower but South Texas does not and discharges back into the lake. The North Anna Nuclear Generating Station uses a cooling pond or artificial lake, which at the plant discharge canal is often about 30F warmer than in the other parts of the lake or in normal lakes (this is cited as an attraction of the area by some residents).[47] The environmental effects on the artificial lakes are often weighted in arguments against construction of new plants, and during droughts have drawn media attention.[48] The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is credited with helping the conservation status of the American Crocodile, largely an effect of the waste heat produced.[49]

The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is in a hearing process to determine if a cooling system other than river water will be necessary (conditional upon the plants extending their operating licenses).[50] It is possible to use waste heat in cogeneration applications such as district heating. The principles of cogeneration and district heating with nuclear power are the same as any other form of thermal power production. One use of nuclear heat generation was with the gesta Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden. In Switzerland, the Beznau Nuclear Power Plantprovides heat to about 20,000 people.[51] However, district heating with nuclear power plants is less common than with other modes of waste heat generation: because of eithersiting regulations and/or the NIMBY effect, nuclear stations are generally not built in densely populated areas. Waste heat is more commonly used in industrial applications.[52] During Europe's 2003 and 2006 heat waves, French, Spanish and German utilities had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment. Some nuclear reactors shut down.[53][54] Environmental effects of accidents The worst accidents at nuclear power plants have resulted in severe environmental contamination. However, the extent of the actual damage is still being debated. Fukushima disaster See also: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Three of the reactors at Fukushima Ioverheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which released large amounts of radioactive material into the air.[55]

Japan towns, villages, and cities around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The 20km and 30km areas had evacuation and sheltering orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted. In March 2011 an earthquake and tsunami caused damage that led to explosions and partial meltdowns at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Radiation levels at the stricken Fukushima I power plant have varied spiking up to 1,000 mSv/h (millisievert per hour),[56] which is a level that can cause radiation sickness to occur at a later time following a one hour exposure.[57] Significant release in emissions

of radioactive particles took place following hydrogen explosions at three reactors, as technicians tried to pump in seawater to keep the uranium fuel rods cool, and bled radioactive gas from the reactors in order to make room for the seawater.[58] Concerns about the possibility of a large scale release of radioactivity resulted in 20 km exclusion zone being set up around the power plant and people within the 2030 km zone being advised to stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading nuclear contamination.[59] New Scientist has reported that emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium from the crippled Fukushima I nuclear plant have approached levels evident after theChernobyl disaster in 1986.[60] On March 24, 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures". Officials said also that the fallout from the Daiichi plant is "hindering search efforts for victims from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami".[61] According to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, "by April 27 approximately 55 percent of the fuel in reactor unit 1 had melted, along with 35 percent of the fuel in unit 2, and 30 percent of the fuel in unit 3; and overheated spent fuels in the storage pools of units 3 and 4 probably were also damaged".[13] As of April 2011, water is still being poured into the damaged reactors to cool melting fuel rods.[62] The accident has surpassed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in seriousness, and is comparable to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.[13] The Economist reports that the Fukushima disaster is "a bit like three Three Mile Islands in a row, with added damage in the spent-fuel stores",[63] and that there will be ongoing impacts: Years of clean-up will drag into decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up stretching beyond the plants perimeter.

Seriously exposed workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives...[63] John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear Corporation, has said that it "might be 100 years before melting fuel rods can be safely removed from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant".[62] The Economist says that nuclear power "looks dangerous, unpopular, expensive and risky", and that "it is replaceable with relative ease and could be forgone with no huge structural shifts in the way the world works".[63] In the second half of August 2011, Japanese lawmakers announced that Prime Minister Naoto Kan would likely visit the Fukushima Prefecture to announce that the large contaminated area around the destroyed reactors would be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades. Some of the areas in the temporary 12 miles (19 km) radius evacuation zone around Fukushima were found to be heavily contaminated with radionuclides according to a new survey released by the Japanese Ministry of Science and Education. The town of Okuma was reported as being over 25 times above the safe limit of 20 millesievers per year.[64]

Chernobyl disaster

Map showing Caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area as of 1996 As of 2013 the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine was and remains the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster. Estimates of its death toll are controversial and range from 62 to 25,000, with the high projections including deaths that have yet to happen. Peer reviewed publications have generally supported a projected total figure in the low tens of thousands; for example an estimate of 16,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted to occur due to the Chernobyl accident out to the year 2065 made by theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer and published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2006.[65] The IARC also released a press release stating "To put it in perspective, tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same

population", but also, referring to the numbers of different types of cancers, "The exception is thyroid cancer, which, over ten years ago, was already shown to be increased in the most contaminated regions around the site of the accident".[66] The full version of the World Health Organization health effects report adopted by the United Nations, also published in 2006, included the prediction of, in total, 4,0009,000 deaths from cancer among the 6.9 million most-exposed former-Soviet citizens.[67] A paper which the Union of concerned scientists took issue with the report, and they have instead estimated, for the broader population, that the legacy of Chernobyl would be a total of 25,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide.[68] That places the total Chernobyl death toll below that of the worst dam failure accident in history, the Banqiao Dam disaster of 1975 in China. Large amounts of radioactive contamination were spread across Europe due to the Chernobyl disaster, and cesium and strontium contaminated many agricultural products, livestock and soil. The accident necessitated the evacuation of the entire city of Pripyat and of 300,000 people from Kiev, rendering an area of land unusable to humans for an indeterminate period.[69] As radioactive materials decay, they release particles that can damage the body and lead to cancer, particularly cesium137 and iodine-131. In the Chernobyl disaster, releases of cesium-137 contaminated land. Some communities, including the entire city of Pripyat, were abandoned permanently. Thousands of people who drank milk contaminated with radioactive iodine developed thyroid cancer.[70] The exclusion zone (approx. 30 km radius around Chernobyl) will have significantly elevated levels of radiation, which is now predominately due to the decay of cesium137, for around 10 half-lives of that isotope, which is approximately for 300 years.[71] Due to the bioaccumulation of cesium-137, some mushrooms as well as wild animals which eat them, e.g. wild boars hunted in

Germany and deer in Austria, may have levels which are not considered safe for human consumption.[72] Mandatory radiation testing of sheep in parts of the UK that graze on lands with contaminated peat was lifted in 2012.[73] In 2007 The Ukrainian government declared much of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, almost 50,000 hectares, a zoological animal reserve.[74] With many species of animals experiencing a population increase since human influence has largely left the region, including an increase in moose, bison and wolf numbers.[75] However other species such as barn swallows and many invertebrates, e.g spider numbers are below what is suspected.[76] With much controversy amongst biologists over the question of, if in fact Chernobyl is now a wildlife reserve.[77] Greenhouse gas emissions Nuclear power plant operation emits no or negligible amounts of carbon dioxide. However, all other stages of the nuclear fuel chain mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.[78][79][80] There was a debate on the quantity ofgreenhouse gas emissions from the complete nuclear fuel chain.[25] Many commentators have argued that an expansion of nuclear power would help combat climate change. Others have pointed out that it is one way to reduce emissions, but it comes with its own problems, such as risks related to severe nuclear accidents the challenges of more radioactive waste disposal. Other commentators have argued that there are better ways of dealing with climate change than investing in nuclear power, including the improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on decentralized and renewable energysources.[25]

Nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable power generators produce electricity with 9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh.[81] A more recent, 2012 study by Yale Universityhowever revealed this Nuclear estimate to be too high, and instead the mean value from Nuclear power, after harmonization was 12 g/kWh of total life cycle CO2 emissions[82] According to an analysis by the anti-nuclear advocate Mark Z. Jacobson, nuclear power results in 9 to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind power, "in part due to emissions from uranium refining and transport and reactor construction, in part due to the longer time required to site, permit, and construct a nuclear plant compared with a wind farm (resulting in greater emissions from the fossil-fuel electricity sector during this period), and in part due to the greater loss of soil carbon due to the greater loss in vegetation resulting from covering the ground with nuclear facilities relative to wind turbine towers, which cover little ground."[83]

Various life cycle analysis (LCA) studies have led to a large range of estimates. Some comparisons of carbon dioxide emissions shownuclear power as comparable to renewable [84][85] energy sources. On another hand, a 2008 meta analysis of 103 studies, published byBenjamin Sovacool, determined that renewable electricity technologies are "two to seven times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change".[81] A 2012 Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.[86] "The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies." It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor: "Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh" Decommissioning Main article: Nuclear decommissioning Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be carefully decommissioned using processes that are occupationally dangerous, and hazardous to the natural environment, expensive, and time-intensive. Safe

Meeting Challenges & Moving Forward In the nuclear industry, safety comes first. It's in our industry's DNA to learn safety lessons and apply them at nuclear facilities across America. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is unique among nuclear operators around the world in the extent to which we have planned for extreme events such as the earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011. San Onofre's reactors were originally designed with added engineering and safety measures, but Southern California Edison (SCE), like its industry colleagues, is making even more improvements and responding to the lessons learned from the events at Fukushima Daiichi and preparing to meet whatever Mother Nature may have in store. Safety is Our No. 1 Priority In January 2012, SCE safely shut down Units 2 and 3. Unit 2 was due for planned maintenance and Unit 3 was safely taken offline when the station operators detected a small leak in one of that unit's almost 20,000 steam generator tubes. Both units at the plant remain safely shut down. SCE's engineers, leading experts and the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission are working to determine a safe operating solution for the facility's steam generators. Over the past several months, we have assembled leading nuclear experts from around the world and have conducted more than 170,000 inspections. Inspections and testing showed wear in the steam generating tubing in both units. Some wear was expected, but the inspections and testing also showed significant amounts of unexpected wear, predominantly found in Unit 3. Engineers determined that the unexpected wear was associated with excessive vibration of the tubes in certain areas of the steam generators. It is not clear whether Unit 3 will be able to restart without

excessive additional repairs. The Unit 2 steam generator tubes have performed very differently from the Unit 3 tubes indicating that the tube supports in Unit 2 are in much better condition and remain effective. Adhering to Industry Standards A team of internal and external steam generator experts has prepared corrective action, and repair and operations plans, to ensure SCE meets the high safety standards required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. SCE has provided the NRC with the materials needed to request restart of Unit 2. California-based utilities adhere to some of the strictest local and state regulatory requirements in the United States. The NRC will take the necessary time to review all plans and materials before making a decision about restart. Safety is our No. 1 priority and there are no deadlines for restarting either unit. High-level nuclear waste is material that is saturated by radioactivity. This consists for the most part of spent nuclear fuel that, although it is extremely radioactive, also contains a large amount of potential energy. This spent fuel is often reprocessed and reused again in a nuclear power plant. How is nuclear waste taken care of? Much low-level waste is simply left in a holding plant until the small amounts of radiation decay and disappear. This process usually takes only a couple of hours or at most a few days, after which the waste can then be disposed of like regular garbage. Other types of longer-lasting nuclear waste are often stored in underground concrete bunkers or pools filled with water. Water is used to both provide shielding from the radioactive materials and to cool down the high temperatures generated by the radiation. Often

these bunkers and pools are constructed near the location of the nuclear facility. After years have passed and the materials have lost their radioactivity, they are then reprocessed accordingly. How dangerous is nuclear waste? Most high-level nuclear waste is classified as extremely dangerous and large amounts of care is needed to process and store it correctly. It is not, however, any more dangerous than the majority of harmful chemicals and heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Even some of the most contaminated forms of spent nuclear fuel are predicted to lose most of their radioactivity in less than five hundred years. Is nuclear waste a government-controlled substance? Plants that take care of nuclear waste must be licensed by the nuclear regulatory branch of the Federal Government. Government inspectors conduct regular inspections and waste disposal licenses must be renewed periodically. Under federal law, these facilities maintain a high level of security and are closely monitored by the proper authorities. How much nuclear waste is there? Approximately twelve thousand tons of spent nuclear fuel is disposed of annually, a fourth of which undergoes a recycling and reusing process. This number is projected to increase as more nuclear power plants are opened. To date there is approximately 270 thousand tons of spent nuclear fuel being stored around the world. Have there been any accidents involving the disposal of nuclear waste?

Two notable accidents have taken place in the last 30 years of nuclear history. In Brazil, in 1987, four people were killed when scavengers removed material that was still radioactive from a deserted hospital. In France, in 2008, radioactive liquid was accidentally dumped into a river. What is the future of nuclear waste? Official research teams in the United Kingdom, France, and Canada have come to the conclusion that the safest way to store high-level nuclear waste is to isolate it deep underground, preferably in geological repositories. Many insist that the long term effects of this storage solution are still not known. How much does all of this cost? Besides storage of the nuclear waste, any soil or water that has been contaminated must be treated. In addition to this, the cost is raised by the needed demolition of buildings, exhuming and reprocessing of waste that was faultily processed, and the decommissioning of ancient nuclear reactors. In total, in the United States alone, the project is projected to cost as much as 400 billion dollars for 75 years of nuclear waste disposal. Which federal agencies are in charge of this? The Department of Energy supervises the waste disposal facilities and the Environmental Protection Agency fixes government standards for proper nuclear waste storage. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides licenses to commercial nuclear reactors. How do nuclear waste dumps effect the environment? Can somebody please answer the following questions for me: How do nuclear waste dumps effect the environment? such as if it is

dump in the ocean, what happens? In countries that have nuclear reactors, where is the waste buried? How does nuclear waste affect people? What will happen to the earth if nuclear waste is burried in there?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker There are many classes of nuclear waste. Everything from the radioactive sources used in medical treatment to sources used in manufacturing processes to the spent fuel from nuclear reactors. Each is handled differently, and in many cases the same type of waste is handled differently from one country to the next. It sounds like you are talking about spent fuel. In the U.S. there have been over 100 nuclear reactors operating since the 60's/70's. All of that spent fuel is still sitting on site where it was produced, since the U.S. has no waste repository. These plants are spread all around the country, yet no significant accident involving this waste has ever occurred or else would be sure to hear about it from Greenpeace to this day. The term "spent fuel" is misleading in itself. The spent fuel taken from a reactor actually has a huge amount of usable nuclear fuel left in it. The problem is that over time, the fragments of fissioned uranium act to "poison" the reactor so that the remaining burnable fuel is not actually usable. If you read the linked page about France you will see mention of "reprocessing". What they do is take out the good fuel still left in the spent fuel, and then only bury the "poisonous" parts. The usable fuel is then put back into a reactor to produce more energy. These reactor "poisons" sound bad, but in actuality their high radioactivity means that they decay away much faster. When the greenies complain that waste is deadly for 10's of thousands or even millions of years they are really talking about the uranium and

plutonium that should be getting reused. The U.S. has a stupid policy of not reprocessing our spent fuel because the same people who don't understand nuclear power in the first place are afraid of reprocessing as well. Source(s): http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doey Other Answers (3) Show:
Go

Nuclear wastes are highly radioactive. This can cause mutations and even death to most living things. They are most of the time dumped into the deepest part of the ocean or underground contained in specialized and tough containers. In an incident in our country, radioactive wastes were dumped without proper procedures. This caused mutation to many living things including humans. It was horrible. Many died and got sick then later died. A lot of babies were mutated at birth. Some have messed up faces and many lacked some body parts. Waste is disposed of/stored in deep unused salt mines. It is not "Dumped" anywhere. Waste is a danger because of the so called "half life", it takes a long time for waste to decay to the point that it is harmless. nuclear waste is also radioactive but its not economical to generate electricity from it so its waste.dumping it in the ocean will affect the marine life. nuclear wastes are kept under water in lead containers in specially made dumping ground Discover Questions in Earth Sciences & Geology

Where/how might different cooling temperatures for igneous rock occur?

What difference does crystal size make to the igneous rock? If an igneous or sedimentary rock melts completely then why doesn't it become a metamorphic rock? What type of rock is in these 2 pictures? (sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic)? Nuclear Waste Disposal Methods Subhan March 9, 2011 Ali

Submitted as coursework for Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2011 The United States currently has 104 operational nuclear power plants. [1] As part of the nuclear fuel cycle process, radioactive waste is produced that needs to be safely dealt with in order to avoid permanent damage to the surrounding environment. Nuclear waste can be temporarily treated on-site at the production facility using a number of methods, such as vitrification, ion exchange or synroc. Although this initial treatment prepares the waste for transport and inhibits damage in the short-term, long-term management solutions for nuclear waste lie at the crux of finding a viable solution towards more widespread adoption of nuclear power. Specific long-term management methods include geological disposal, transmutation, waste re-use, and space disposal. It is also worth noting that the halflife of certain radioactive wastes can be in the range of 500,000 years or more. [2] Geological Disposal The process of geological disposal centers on burrowing nuclear waste into the ground to the point where it is out of human reach. There are a

number of issues that can arise as a result of placing waste in the ground. The waste needs to be properly protected to stop any material from leaking out. Seepage from the waste could contaminate the water table if the burial location is above or below the water level. Furthermore, the waste needs to be properly fastened to the burial site and also structurally supported in the event of a major seismic event, which could result in immediate contamination. Also, given the half-life noted above, a huge concern centers around how feasible it would be to even assume that nuclear waste could simply lie in repository that far below the ground. Concerns regarding terrorism also arise. [3] A noted geological disposal project that was recently pursued and could possible still be pursued in the future by the United States government is the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The federal government has voted to develop the site for future nuclear storage. Although the Obama administration has been adamant in stating that Yucca Mountain is "off the table," Congress voted by a margin of 10 to 1 in 2009 to keep funding the project as part of the federal budget. A number of concerns surround this project and the ultimate long-term viability of it are yet to be seen given the political uncertainty surrounding it. [4] Reprocessing Reprocessing has also emerged as a viable long term method for dealing with waste. As the name implies, the process involves taking waste and separating the useful components from those that arent as useful. Specifically, it involves taking the fissionable material out from the irradiated nuclear fuel. Concerns regarding re-processing have largely focused around nuclear proliferation and how much easier reprocessing would allow fissionable material to spread. [5]

Transmutation Transmutation also poses a solution for long term disposal. It specifically involves converting a chemical element into another less harmful one. Common conversions include going from Chlorine to Argon or from Potassium to Argon. The driving force behind transmutation is chemical reactions that are caused from an outside stimulus, such as a proton hitting the reaction materials. Natural transmutation can also occur over a long period of time. Natural transmutation also serves as the principle force behind geological storage on the assumption that giving the waste enough isolated time will allow it to become a non-fissionable material that poses little or no risk. [6] Space Disposal Space disposal has emerged as an option, but not as a very viable one. Specifically, space disposal centers around putting nuclear waste on a space shuttle and launching the shuttle into space. This becomes a problem from both a practicality and economic standpoint as the amount of nuclear waste that could be shipped on a single shuttle would be extremely small compared to the total amount of waste that would need to be dealt with. Furthermore, the possibility of the shuttle exploding en route to space could only make the matter worse as such an explosion would only cause the nuclear waste to spread out far beyond any reasonable measure of control. The upside would center around the fact that launching the material into space would subvert any of the other issues associated with the other disposal methods as the decay of the material would occur outside of our atmosphere regardless of the half-life. [7]

Conclusion Various methods exist for the disposal of nuclear waste. A combination of factors must be taken into account when assessing any one particular method. First, the volume of nuclear waste is large and needs to be accounted for. Second, the half-life of nuclear waste results in the necessity for any policymaker to view the time horizon as effectively being infinite as it is best to find a solution that will require the least intervention once a long-term plan has been adapted. Last, the sustainability of any plan needs to be understood. Reducing the fissionability of the material and dealing with adverse effects it can have on the environment and living beings needs to be fully incorporated. Ultimately, nuclear waste is a reality with nuclear power and needs to be properly addressed in order to accurately assess the long-term viability of this power source.