# data[].attributes.body
is it safe?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you hear the words "nuclear energy," what do you think of? Perhaps an image comes to mind of a nuclear bomb, or a nuclear energy crisis like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If this is your image of nuclear power, you might be surprised to learn that nuclear energy is actually considered one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy production in the world. With fewer emissions and greater efficiency, there are many pros and cons of nuclear energy to consider.

There are also challenges when producing nuclear energy, including expense, safety, waste, security, and more. Learn more about the pros and cons of nuclear energy to better understand this energy source and how it might benefit our world in the future.

What Is Nuclear Energy?

Before we jump into the pros and cons of nuclear energy, it's helpful to know what nuclear energy is and how it's created. Nuclear energy is created through the process of splitting atoms-specifically, uranium atoms. When the atom is split it becomes two smaller, lighter atoms. Because energy doesn't just disappear, the "lost" mass is converted into heat, which is used to produce electricity. Nuclear power plants simply provide a controlled environment for these reactions to occur.

Nuclear Energy Pros

There are many pros and cons of nuclear energy, and it's important to understand both sides to get an idea of what this energy resource is capable of. Knowing the pros and cons of nuclear energy will help you decide for yourself whether this energy resource is a good decision for our future energy needs and for the planet.

1. Low Cost of Operation

After the initial cost of construction, nuclear energy has the advantage of being one of the most cost-effective energy solutions available. The cost to produce electricity from nuclear energy is much lower than the cost to produce energy from gas, coal, or oil unless those resources are located near the power plant they supply. Nuclear energy also has the added benefit of facing comparatively low risks for cost inflation -unlike traditional fossil fuels that regularly fluctuate in price.

2. Reliable Source of Energy

While some energy sources are dependent upon weather conditions, like solar and wind power, nuclear energy has no such constraints. It doesn't matter if the wind isn't blowing or if the day is cloudy. Nuclear power plants are essentially unaffected by external climatic factors and create predictable and steady energy output. A nuclear power plant in full-swing operation can produce energy non-stop for an entire year, which allows for a good return on investment because there is no delay in energy production.

Nuclear power plants are also reliable because we have enough uranium on the planet to generate energy for the next 70-80 years. While that may not sound like a long time, it is longer than many fossil fuels are estimated to last, and there are other nuclear energy sources being explored to power nuclear power plants.

3. Stable Base Load Energy

You may not realize it, but nuclear energy is widely used in America. In fact, it makes up around 20% of all electricity generated in the United States. This efficient energy source comes from the 98 nuclear power reactors dotted around 30 different states in the U.S. The stable production of power created by nuclear power plants means that it can ideally be used in conjunction with other forms of renewable energy.

For example, wind turbines generate significant amounts of power-when the wind blows. When the wind is blowing, nuclear plants can adjust energy output to be lower. Conversely, when the wind is not blowing and greater energy is needed, nuclear energy can be adjusted to compensate for the lack of wind (or solar) generated power.

4. Produces Low Pollution

When it comes to pollution, it's clear that there are pros and cons of nuclear energy, and don't worry, we'll touch on the issue of nuclear waste in a moment. However, the overall output of pollution from a nuclear power plant is quite low compared with energy production from fossil fuels. The current consumption of nuclear energy already reduces over 555 million metric tons of emissions every year. This reduction in greenhouse gases is a great indicator of how switching to nuclear energy can help reduce our effect on global climate change in the long run.

5. Sufficient Fuel Availability

Like fossil fuels, the uranium used to supply nuclear power plants is in limited supply. However, our uranium reserves are estimated to last another 80 years, whereas fossil fuels have a much more limited lifespan. Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been consistently and constantly depleting our fossil fuel reserves. If we continue consuming fossil fuels and keep increasing our consumption as the world population grows, we are estimated to run out of oil by 2052, gas in 2060, and coal by 2088.

Of course, there are more fossil fuel discoveries we have yet to make, but they are fewer and farther between than ever and will eventually run out. Switching to uranium might give us the extra time we need to find better and cleaner renewable energy resources. Plus, some countries like India, China, and Russia are already working towards using the greener and more abundant thorium to power nuclear reactors. If we switch to thorium we will have even longer than 80 years or fuel available. However, if scientists are able to turn nuclear fusion into a reality, we would theoretically never run out of electricity ever again. Turning nuclear energy into sustainable energy requires the use of breeder reactors and nuclear fusion to sustain us for the foreseeable future.

6. It Has High Energy Density

On our list of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, this pro is quite astounding. Nuclear fission (the process used to generate nuclear energy) releases much greater amounts of energy than simply burning fossil fuels like gas, oil, or coal. How much more efficient? Nuclear fission is nearly 8,000 times more efficient at producing energy than traditional fossil fuels. That's a considerable amount of energy density. Because nuclear energy is more efficient, it requires less fuel to power the plant and therefore creates less waste as well.

Nuclear Energy Cons

On our list of pros and cons of nuclear energy, we've covered what makes nuclear power a great option for the future of our electricity needs. However, there are disadvantages of nuclear energy to keep in mind when considering if this power source is the best form of environmentally friendly energy for our future. Here are some of the main cons of nuclear energy.

1. Expensive to Build

Despite being relatively inexpensive to operate, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build-and the cost keeps rising. From 2002 to 2008 the estimated cost to build a nuclear plant grew from $2-$4 billion to $9 billion, and power plants often surpass their cost estimates during construction. In addition to the expense of building a power plant, nuclear plants must also allocate funds to protect the waste they produce and keep it in cooled structures with security procedures in place. All of these costs make nuclear power quite expensive.

2. Accidents

One of the first things most people think of when they hear nuclear power plant is the disaster at Chernobyl. Although we don't know exactly how many people died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, it's estimated that there have been as many as 10,000 deaths from the long-term effects of radiation in the region. The Fukushima power plant crisis in 2011 showed that no matter how safe nuclear power plants are designed to be, accidents can and do happen.

3. Produces Radioactive Waste

Although nuclear energy production does not create any emissions, it does produce radioactive waste that must be securely stored so it doesn't pollute the environment. While radiation might sound scary, we are constantly exposed to small amounts of radioactivity from cosmic rays or radon in the air we breathe. In small quantities, radiation isn't harmful-but the radioactive waste from nuclear energy production is incredibly dangerous.

Storage of radioactive waste is a major challenge facing nuclear power plants. Because there's no way to destroy nuclear waste, the current solution is to seal it securely in containers and store it deep underground where it can't contaminate the environment. As technology improves, we will hopefully find better ways of storing radioactive waste in the future.

4. Impact on the Environment

Nuclear power plants have a greater impact on the environment than just the waste they produce. The mining and enrichment of uranium are not environmentally friendly processes. Open-pit mining for uranium is safe for miners but leaves behind radioactive particles, causes erosion, and even pollutes nearby sources of water. Underground mining isn't much better and exposes miners to high amounts of radiation while producing radioactive waste rock during extraction and processing.

5. Security Threat

Nuclear power presents a unique threat to our national security because it is powered by nuclear energy. Terrorists might target nuclear power plants with the intention of creating a disaster, and the uranium used to produce the power can be turned into nuclear weapons if they end up in the wrong hands. For these reasons, security surrounding nuclear materials and nuclear power plants is extremely important.

6. Limited Fuel Supply

There might be some important pros and cons of nuclear energy, but one of the most important considerations to keep in mind is that nuclear energy is dependent on uranium and thorium to produce energy. Unless we can find a way to create nuclear fusion or build breeder reactors before our supply dries up, we will be unable to create energy with the nuclear power plants we've built for the future. Ultimately, nuclear power is only a temporary solution with a very high price tag.

A Sustainable Future

Learning about the pros and cons of nuclear energy will help you make your own decision about whether it's a good choice for our future energy needs or whether it's not a long-term strategy worth pursuing. If you're interested in doing your part for the environment and finding ways to reduce your energy consumption, visit Spring Power & Gas to learn more about our environmentally conscious products today. We offer services in Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy: Is it safe?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you hear the words "nuclear energy," what do you think of? Perhaps an image comes to mind of a nuclear bomb, or a nuclear energy crisis like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Philipp Egli

Few energy industry topics are discussed as vigorously as nuclear power. For some, nuclear is an underutilised source of energy. Cheap to produce and low carbon, they say nuclear should be a larger part of the world's energy mix as it transitions away from fossil fuels to low-carbon and renewable energy.

For others, nuclear is as bad if not worse than fossil fuels. They argue the potential of a nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl and Fukushima outweighs the positives of nuclear power, as do the excessive costs and difficulty in disposing of the nuclear waste produced.

Unlike traditional fossil fuels like coal, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions like methane and CO ₂.

Nuclear advocacy group the World Nuclear Association found that the average emissions for nuclear are 29 tonnes of CO ₂ per gigawatt hour (GWh) of energy produces. This compares favourably with renewable sources like solar (85 tonnes per GWh) and wind (26 tonnes per GWh) and even more favourably with fossil fuels like lignite (1,054 tonnes per GWh) and coal (888 tonnes per GWh).

Nuclear produces roughly the same or less emissions as renewable sources so could be considered an environmentally friendly source of energy.

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile - free sample

Anti-nuclear campaigners will cite the three major nuclear meltdowns of recent times, Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and most recently Fukushima in 2011.

Despite all the safety measures in place these nuclear plants, different factors caused them to go into meltdown, which was devastating for the environment and for local inhabitants who had to flee the affected areas.

The official immediate death toll for Chernobyl was reported as 54 people, although this is consistently disputed, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established a figure of 4,000 projected deaths in the longer term. Is the potential of nuclear power worth the risk of powerful radiation leaks, mass evacuations and billions spent in repairs?

Pro - Not intermittent

US President Donald Trump famously decried wind energy for its intermittency, saying: "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric." The consistent criticism of renewable energy like wind and solar is that they only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Nuclear, however, is not intermittent, as nuclear power plants can run without any interruptions for a year and more without interruptions or maintenance, making it a more reliable source of energy.

One side effect of nuclear power is the amount of nuclear waste it produces. It has been estimated that the world produces some 34,000m ³ of nuclear waste each year, waste that takes years to degrade.

Anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace released a report in January 2019 that detailed what it called a nuclear waste 'crisis' for which there is 'no solution on the horizon'. One such solution was a concrete nuclear waste 'coffin' on Runit Island, which has begun to crack open and potentially release radioactive material.

Nuclear power plants are cheaper to run than their coal or gas rivals. It has been estimated that even factoring in costs such as managing radioactive fuel and disposal nuclear plants cost between 33 to 50% of a coal plant and 20 to 25% of a gas combined-cycle plant.

The amount of energy produced is also superior to most other forms. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that to replace a 1GW nuclear power plant would require 2GW of coal or 3GW to 4GW from renewable sources to generate the same amount of electricity.

Con - Expensive to build

The initial costs for building a nuclear power plant are steep. A recent virtual test reactor in the US estimate rose from $3.5bn to $6bn alongside huge extra costs to maintain the facility.

South Africa scrapped plans to add 9.6GW of nuclear power to its energy mix due to the cost, which was estimated anywhere between $34-84bn. So whilst nuclear plants are cheap to run and produce inexpensive fuel, the initial costs are off-putting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear power pros and cons: What's the impact of the energy source?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are the pros and cons of nuclear power? Power-technology.com weighs up opinions on the controversial source of energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many good reasons to oppose the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear power installations are vulnerable for accidents, incidents and attacks. Radioactive material can be disseminated. Radiation is harmfull and can, even in small quantities, be lethal. Contamination with radioactive material can make entire regions uninhabitable for thousands of years.
Even during 'normal operation' nuclear power stations (and other installations) disseminate radioactive materials. The nuclear fuel chain is complicated and in every step transport is needed. These transports are in itself vulnerable for accidents, incidents and theft. Radioactive material in the 'wrong hands' leads to a horror-scenario. The use of nuclear power leads to the production of large quantities of dangerous radioactive waste. Although the nuclear industry has been seeking for solutions for more than 6 decades now there is still no country in the world that has found a scientific sound way to deal with its radioactive waste.
It does not take much to build a nuclear weapon ones you have access to the material, knowledge and infrastructure provided by the 'civil nuclear fuel chain'.

Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and hard to finance. Only when supported by public money a nuclear power station is build. In almost all countries risks and non-direct costs are passed on to the government (the public, the taxpayers); longterm management of the waste, security of the nuclear power plant, costs of transport for instance. It is impossible to insure your nuclear facility on the private market. So in all cases it is the government again who guarantees the compensation for accident-related costs - which is in itself again impossible. The Fukushima disaster in Japan is estimated to costs at least $143 billion. The nuclear disaster in Japan has tragically demonstrated how unsafe nuclear power can be. The chance that a major accident happens is maybe slim but the consequences are devastating.

A nuclear power station itself does not emit greenhouse gasses like CO2. Yet nuclear power contributes to climate change; with every step in the whole fuel chain, needed to in the end generate electricity, many energy is used. For instance, the extraction of uranium and the enrichment of uranium are extreme energy-intensive processes. Life-cycle analysis of the whole fuel chain clearly shows the contribution of nuclear power to climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many good reasons to oppose the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear power installations are vulnerable for accidents, incidents and attacks. Radioactive material can be disseminated. Radiation is harmfull and can, even in small quantities, be lethal. Contamination with radioactive material can make entire regions uninhabitable for thousands of years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to the safety of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

How many deaths did each of these events cause?

When it comes to nuclear accidents there are really two fatal impacts to consider: the first being the number of direct deaths which occurred either at the time of incident, or in the days which followed (i.e. the acute impacts); the second being the long-term (chronic) impacts of radiation exposure, which has known links to the incidence of several forms of cancer.

Deaths from Chernobyl

31 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.

The number of people who were impacted over long-term radiation exposure is more difficult to discern and remains highly contested. Part of this difficulty lies in the methodology used to estimate long-term deaths from low-level radiation exposure. In the published estimates shown, studies have utilised a methodology termed the 'linear no-threshold model' (LNT); this model is typically applied in assessments of radiation risk and in setting regulatory limits for environmental protection. However, the LNT method remains strongly contested, and is assumed to provide a conservative estimate of potential mortality [ we have provided a short discussion on the LNT model and its implications in the technical notes at the end of this post]. As such, we may expect that the numbers quoted below to be interpreted as the upper limit of a given source's estimate.

The chart here reflects a range of published estimates on the number of deaths resultant from the Chernobyl disaster. In its 2005/06 assessment 'Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts' the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that the total number of long-term deaths will be around 4,000.

However, this figure is related only to the proximate populations of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus which were exposed to high radiation levels; if extended to estimates of those exposed to low-level radiation across the region, this number rises to 9000.

Other studies have suggested higher figures. A study in the International Journal of Cancer by Cardis et al. (2006) estimates a total of 16,000 deaths across Europe.

Radiation scientists Fairlie and Sumner provide some of highest estimates, predicting between 30,000-60,000 deaths.

The challenge of cancer risk attribution- especially at low doses of exposure in further geographic regions- makes this process of estimation particularly difficult. In its 2008 report, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) refrained from quoting a figure for the absolute number of deaths within populations exposed to low radiation doses from Chernobyl because of uncertainty in the limit no-threshold model and "unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions".

Deaths from Fukushima

In the case of Fukushima, although 40 to 50 people experienced physical injury or radiation burns at the nuclear facility, the number of direct deaths from the incident are quoted to be zero. In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of exposure from the event.

However, mortality from radiation exposure was not the only threat to human health: the official death toll was 573 people - who died as a result of evacuation procedures and stress-induced factors. This figure ranges between 1,000-1,600 deaths from evacuation (the evacuation of populations affected by the earthquake and tsunami at the time can make sole attribution to the nuclear disaster challenging). Stress-induced deaths affected mostly older people; more than 90 percent of mortality occurred in individuals over the age of 66.

In the chart we have shown the estimated number of total deaths by attributed cause.

How many are projected to suffer in the long-term from low-level radiation exposure? In its initial Health Risk Assessment of the nuclear disaster - published in 2013 - the World Health Organization (WHO) note exposure levels too low to affect human health for the national population, with exception to a few communities in closest proximity. The follow-up WHO Report published five years on - in 2015 - suggests very low risk of increased cancer deaths in Japan. In a review of the response and long-term health impacts of Fukushima, published by Michael Reich and Aya Goto (2015) in journal The Lancet, the authors note that: "no one has died from radiation exposure, and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation report in 2013 stated that substantial changes in future cancer statistics attributed to radiation exposure are not expected to be observed".,

In more recent evaluations of rates of perinatal mortality (that is, stillbirths or deaths within the first week of life) in areas closest to the Fukushima site, there were no statistical indications of increased incidence. In fact, rates of perinatal mortality showed an overall decline with time-the general trend we see through improved healthcare and healthier lifestyles.

The death toll of the Fukushima nuclear accident dominated headlines for weeks after the event and overshadowed the much larger tragedy that happened at the same time and place: the Tsunami killed 15,893 people, more than 25 times the number from the nuclear accident.

Why was the death toll from Chernobyl so much higher than Fukushima?

Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only two disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale. But why are more expected to die from Chernobyl than Fukushima?

There are a couple of factors which are likely to have played a key role here. The first of these concerns the technical functionality and safety measures of the respective nuclear facilities. Chernobyl occurred 25 years prior to Fukushima; it was the first instance of a nuclear accident at this scale. From a technical perspective, the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl were poorly designed to deal with such a scenario. Its fatal RBMK reactor had no containment structure, allowing radioactive material to spill into the atmosphere (in contrast, Fukushima's reactors had steel-and-concrete containment structures, although it's likely that at least one of these were also breached). Crucially, the cooling systems of both plants worked very differently; at Chernobyl, the loss of cooling water as steam actually served to accelerate reactivity levels in the reactor core, creating a positive feedback loop towards fatal explosion (the opposite is true of Fukushima, where the reactivity reduces as temperatures rise, effectively operating as a self-shutdown measure).

These technical differences undoubtedly played a role in the relative levels of exposure from both events. However, the governmental response to both events is also likely to have played a crucial role in the number of people who were exposed to high levels of radiation in the days which followed. In the case of Fukushima, the Japanese government responded quickly to the crisis with evacuation efforts extending rapidly from a three kilometre (km), to 10km, to 20km radius whilst the incident at the site continued to unfold. In comparison, the response in the former Soviet Union was one of denial and secrecy.

It's reported that in the days which followed the Chernobyl disasters, residents in surrounding areas were uninformed of the radioactive material in the air around them. In fact, it took at least three days for the Soviet Union to admit an accident had taken place, and did so after radioactive sensors at a Swedish plant were triggered from dispersing radionuclides. It's estimated that the delayed reaction from the Soviet government and poor precautionary steps taken (people continued to drink locally-produced, contaminated milk, for example) led to thousands of thyroid cancer cases in exposed children.

Whilst prevention, and ultimately containment (which are predominantly technical issues), are crucial to the safety of nuclear energy production, these two events also highlight the importance of political governance and response in the aftermath of such disasters.

Nuclear energy is one of the safest energy sources

The potential risks of nuclear energy are real: in both Chernobyl and Fukushima, deaths occurred as a result of direct nuclear impacts, radiation exposure and psychological stress. Nonetheless, of the two largest nuclear disasters, the death toll was of the order of thousands, and hundreds in the latest. Arguably still too many, but far fewer than the millions who die every year from impacts of other conventional energy sources.

As covered in a separate blog post on the relative safety of energy sources, the comparatively low death toll from nuclear energy (resulting in 442 times fewer deaths relative to brown coal per unit of energy, even with radioactive exposure deaths included) is largely at-odds with public perceptions, where public support for nuclear energy is often low as a result of high safety concerns. The key distinction here is that nuclear risk is generally focused within low-probability, high-impact single events in contrast to air pollution impacts which provide a persistent background health risk.

Technical notes: how are deaths from radiation exposure estimated?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to the safety of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
3. How has the environment been affected by the Chernobyl accident?

3.1 To what extent have urban areas been contaminated?

3.2 To what extent have agricultural areas been contaminated?

3.3 To what extent have forests been contaminated?

3.4 To what extent have water bodies been contaminated?

3.5 How did radiation affect plants and animals?

For 10 days following the April 26 explosion, the ruptured Chernobyl reactor continued to release major quantities of radioactive substances, amounting to a total of about 14 EBq. The most significant radioisotopes released were iodine-131, caesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium radioisotopes (see table on radioisotopes released).

More than 200 000 km ² of Europe were contaminated above the level of 37 kBq/m ² of caesium-137. Over 70 % of this area lies in the three most affected countries, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine though the radioactive material was distributed unevenly. For example, radioactive deposits were larger in areas where it was raining when the contaminated air masses passed. Also, because radioactive strontium and plutonium particles are heavier than many other radioactive particles, they were deposited within 100 km of the destroyed reactor.

The half-life of radioactive material is the time taken for half the amount initially present to decay. Because many of the most significant radioisotopes have short half-lives in the range of hours or days, most have decayed away by now. For the decades to come, the most important pollutant will be caesium-137 followed by strontium-90. Plutonium and its decay products (in particular americium-241) will remain in the environment over a longer term of hundreds to thousands of years though at low levels (see half-lives of radioisotopes emitted during the Chernobyl accident). More...

3.1 To what extent have urban areas been contaminated?

Urban areas
Source: Chernobyl Forum

Substantial amounts of radioactive materials were deposited in the urban areas near the power plant. However, their residents were evacuated quickly so that they avoided being exposed to high levels of external radiation. Other urban areas have received different levels of deposition, and their residents have received, and are still receiving, some amount of external radiation.

After the accident, radioactive materials were deposited mostly on open surfaces such as lawns, parks, roads, and building roofs, for instance by contaminated rain. Since then, the surface contamination in urban areas has decreased because of the effects of wind, rain, traffic, street washing and cleanup. However, this has caused the secondary contamination of sewage systems and sludge storage.

Levels of radiation measured in the air in most urban areas are now the same as before the accident, except above undisturbed soil in gardens and parks in some settlements of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine where they remain higher. More...

3.2 To what extent have agricultural areas been contaminated?

After the accident, the deposition of radioactive iodine contaminated agricultural plants, grazing animals, and thus the milk produced in parts of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and some other parts of Europe. This direct deposition on plants was of most concern during the first two months after the accident since radioactive iodine decays quickly.

After this early phase of deposition, an increasingly important concern was plant contamination through absorption of radioactive materials, such as caesium and strontium, from the soil through their roots.

During the first few years after the accident, the levels of radioactive materials in agricultural plants and animals decreased quickly because of factors such as weathering and decay. In the past decade, the radioactivity levels have still gone down, but much more slowly.

Today, the levels of caesium-137 in agricultural food products from Chernobyl-affected areas are generally below national and international action levels.

However, problems persist in some rural areas of the former Soviet Union with small private farms where dairy cows are grazing in pastures that are neither ploughed nor fertilized. In addition, the milk produced in some parts of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine may still have high levels of caesium-137.

For decades to come, most of the radioactive materials that people take in through food and drink in the affected areas will be caesium-137 present in milk, meat, and crops. More...

3.3 To what extent have forests been contaminated?

Because radioactive caesium is continuously taken up and passed on by organisms in forest ecosystems, the animals and vegetation in affected forests and mountains are particularly contaminated. Forest food products such as mushrooms, berries and game contain the highest recorded levels of caesium-137.

While people are getting progressively smaller amounts of radiation from agricultural products, the doses they receive from forest products are expected to remain high for decades to come, since the decrease in the level of radiocaesium will be very slow.

The high transfer of radioactive caesium from lichen to reindeer and from reindeer meat to humans has been demonstrated after the Chernobyl accident in the Arctic and sub-Arctic areas of Europe. The accident led to high contamination of reindeer meat in Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden and caused significant problems for the indigenous Sami people. More...

3.4 To what extent have water bodies been contaminated?

Radioactive materials from Chernobyl deposited on rivers, lakes and some water reservoirs both in areas close to the reactor site and in other parts of Europe. The amount of radioactive materials present in water bodies decreased rapidly during the first weeks after the initial deposition because the radioactive materials decayed, were diluted or were absorbed by the surrounding soils.

Fish absorbed radioactive iodine very quickly but the levels decreased rapidly due to radioactive decay . Bioaccumulation of radioactive caesium along the aquatic food chain resulted in high concentrations in fish in some lakes as far away as Scandinavia and Germany. The levels of strontium-90 in fish did not lead to significant human exposure, particularly as it accumulates in bones rather than in edible parts.

Aquatic bodies are still being contaminated by runoff of long lived caesium-137 and strontium-90 released from contaminated soils. At present, the water and fish of rivers, open lakes and reservoirs have low levels of caesium-137 and strontium-90. However, in some "closed" lakes with no outflowing streams in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine both water and fish will remain contaminated with caesium-137 for decades to come.

Contamination levels of the Black and Baltic seas were much lower than those in fresh water because of greater dilution and distance from Chernobyl. More...

3.5 How did radiation affect plants and animals?

The radioactive materials released by the accident had many immediate harmful effects on plants and animals living within 20 to 30 km of the Chernobyl power plant at the time of the accident. However, there are no reports of any such radiation-induced effects in plants and animals outside this area, referred to as the Exclusion Zone. Each plant and animal responded differently to the accident depending on the dose of radiation received and sensitivity to radiation.

A white-tailed eagle chick observed recently in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Before 1986, these rare predatory birds have been hardly found in this area Source: Chernobyl Forum

Overall, in plants and animals, when high doses were sustained at relatively close distances from the reactor, there was an increase in mortality and a decrease in reproduction. During the first few years after the accident, plants and animals of the Exclusion Zone showed many genetic effects of radiation. Still today there are reports of anomalies in plants and animals both in the Exclusion Zone and beyond.

Over the years, as the radioactivity levels decrease, the biological populations have been recovering from acute radiation effects . Following the initial reductions in numbers, some of the populations have recovered and grown because individuals reproduced or because plants and animals migrated from less affected areas. The fact that human activities such as agriculture or industry have stopped, has helped this recovery. Paradoxically, the Exclusion Zone has become a unique sanctuary for biodiversity. More...

Get involved!

This summary is free and ad-free, as is all of our content. You can help us remain free and independant as well as to develop new ways to communicate science by becoming a Patron!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chernobyl: 3. How has the environment been affected by the Chernobyl accident?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some areas of Europe were substantially contaminated, particularly in current Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine by the large quantities of radioactive materials released from the damaged reactor. Most of these materials have since transformed into stable, non-radioactive materials but some will remain radioactive for a long time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developing safe and sustainable fuels for nuclear energy is an integral part of Los Alamos National Laboratory's energy security mission. Uranium dioxide, a radioactive actinide oxide, is the most widely used nuclear fuel in today's nuclear power plants. A new "combustion synthesis" process recently established for lanthanide metals -- non-radioactive and positioned one row above actinides on the periodic table -- could be a guide for the production of safe, sustainable nuclear fuels.

"Actinide nitride fuels are potentially a safer and more economical option in current power-generating systems," said Bi Nguyen, Los Alamos National Laboratory Agnew postdoc and lead author of research recently published in the journal Inorganic Chemistry, which was selected as an American Chemical Society Editors' Choice Featured Article.

"Nitride fuels are also well suited to future Generation IV nuclear power systems, which focus on safety, and feature a sustainable closed reactor fuel cycle. Actinide nitrides have superior thermal conductivity compared to the oxides and are significantly more energy dense," said Nguyen. Nitrides are a class of chemical compounds that contain nitrogen, versus oxides, which contain oxygen.

Actinide nitride fuels would provide more safety and sustainability because of their energy density, offering up more energy from less material, as well as better thermal conductivity -- allowing for lower temperature operations, giving them a larger margin to meltdown under abnormal conditions.

Actinide nitrides, however, are very challenging to make and the production of large amounts of high purity actinide nitrides continues to be a major impediment to their application. Both actinides and lanthanides are at the bottom of the periodic table and potential methods to make actinide materials are typically first tested with the lanthanides because they behave similarly, but are not radioactive.

Los Alamos National Laboratory and Naval Research Laboratory scientists discovered that LnBTA [lanthanide bis(tetrazolato)amine] compounds can be burned to produce high-purity lanthanide nitride foams in a unique technique called combustion synthesis. This method uses a laser pulse to initiate dehydrated LnBTA complexes, which then undergo a self-sustained combustion reaction in an inert atmosphere to yield nanostructured lanthanide nitride foams. This work was funded by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program.

LnBTA compounds are easily prepared in bulk and their combustion is readily scalable. There is an ongoing collaboration between the Laboratory's Weapons Modernization and Chemistry divisions to examine actinide analogues for combustion synthesis of actinide nitride fuels.

Journal Reference:

Thuy-Ai D. Nguyen, Jacqueline M. Veauthier, David E. Chavez, Bryce C. Tappan, Alexander H. Mueller, Brian L. Scott, Damon A. Parrish. Lanthanide Complexes of Bis(tetrazolato)amine: A Route to Lanthanide Nitride Foams. Inorganic Chemistry, 2020; 59 (22): 16109 DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.0c02480

Cite This Page:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
weapons technology; energy and resources; nuclear energy; chemistry; energy technology; energy policy; fossil fuels; inorganic chemistry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Novel chemical process a first step to making nuclear fuel with fire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developing safe and sustainable fuels for nuclear energy is an integral part of Los Alamos National Laboratory's energy security mission. Uranium dioxide, a radioactive actinide oxide, is the most widely used nuclear fuel in today's nuclear power plants.

# data[].attributes.body
DOE/Los Alamos National Laboratory.  (2020, Nov. 24)  Novel chemical process a first step to making nuclear fuel with fire.  ScienceDaily.com.  Retrieved from  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201124150834.htm
Green Facts.  (n.d.)  Chernobyl Nuclear Accident.  GreenFacts.org.  Retrieved from  https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/3-chernobyl-environment.htm
“List of Parties to the Paris Agreement.”  (2021, Jan. 28)  Wikipedia.  Retrieved from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement
Office of Nuclear Energy.  (2021, Jan. 26)  Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy.  Energy.gov.  Retrieved from  https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy 
Ritchie, Hannah.  (2017, Jul. 24)  What Was the Death Toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?  OurWorldinData.org.  Retrieved from  https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
Spring Power & Gas.  (2018, Dec. 5)  The Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy: Is it Safe?  SpringPowerandGas.us.  Retrieved from   https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/ 
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  (2020, Jul. 17)  Map of Power Reactor Sites.  NRC.gov.  Retrieved from  https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html
Unwin, Jack.  (2019, May 28)  Nuclear Power: The Pros and Cons of the Energy Source.  PowerTechnology.com.  Retrieved from  https://www.power-technology.com/features/nuclear-power-pros-cons/ 
World Information Service on Energy.  (n.d.)  What’s Wrong With Nuclear Power?  WiseInternational.org.  Retrieved from  https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/whats-wrong-nuclear-power?gclid=CjwKCAiAg8OBBhA8EiwAlKw3kuMIiJ6VcDVAnoiRB4Wey_6Zl--MR70yu5AcE3zqIaJsqhEMFcvD0RoCLg8QAvD_BwE 