Helen Caldicott exaggerates Fukushima Daiichi radiation by 7.5 billion times

In September 2014 Helen Caldicott used a hoax radiation dose map.

Dr. Helen Caldicott vs Fukushima Radiation

• The hoax map was created and debunked in March 2011
• This hoax was supposed to be a 'prediction'
• Caldicott claimed 3½ years later that the hoax was true, and the predicted fallout happened.
• Had it happened it would've been enough to kill about ½ the people on the US West coast. [The radiation dose in yellow is = 750 REM = 7500 mSv]

It goes without saying, that the amount of radiation released in the hoax was physically impossible. Back in the real world, suppose each person in the landed yellow area got 1 square metre worth of radiation :- it would've been equivalent to, at most, 11 seconds extra worth of natural radiation.[ref 1-3]

The ratio between Helen Caldicott's exaggeration and any possible Fukushima Daiichi radiation dose is at least 7.5 billion to 1.[ref 1-9]

Notes

1. As of 2014, a peer reviewed estimate of the total radiation released at Fukushima Daiichi was 340 to 800 PBq, with 80% falling into the Pacific ocean.[ref 10]
2. The yellow area on the map, covering land, is at least 3 million km², or 3 × 10¹² m². Dividing that area into 20% of 800 × 10¹⁵ Bq
   = 0.2 × 800 × 10¹⁵ / (3 × 10¹²) Bq/m²
   = 53,000 Bq/m²
3. Our bodies experience 5000 radioactive decays per second. (5000 Bq)
4. 1 PBq (petabecquerel) = 10¹⁵ Bq
5. 1 Bq = 1 radioactive decay per second
6. Natural background radiation dose ~ 3 mSv per year, ~ 0.0000000095 REM per second
7. Extra Fukushima Daiichi radiation dose (maximum) ~ 0.0000001 REM
8. Extra Fukushima Daiichi radiation dose claimed by Caldicott ~ 750 REM
9. Disparity between maximum possible and Caldicott's claim ~ 7.5 billion.
10. "Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts Science of The Total Environment Volumes 470–471, 1 February 2014, Pages 800–817".

Does nuclear power cause climate change?

Krypton-85 is a fission product produced in nuclear reactors. A small amount leaks, mostly from spent fuel, into the atmosphere, where it decays, with a half-life of 10.7 years, to rubidium-85, via beta decay. This decay produces two ionized particles: Rb-85(+) and an electron(-). Various environmentalists/climate campaigners [refs 2-6] claim this atmospheric ionization causes climate change. In 2005, the amount of Kr-85 in that atmosphere was 1.3 Bq/m³ [ref 1]

When I compare the rate of production of ions (from Kr-85) decay to the rate of neutralization (from lightning), I find neutralization overwhelms the effect of Kr-85 decay by 2 million to 1.

So is Krypton-85 a real climate risk or not. If it's a risk why isn't solar radiation also a massive risk. Why does mainstream climate science tar denier on solar radiation proponents, at the same time ignore those posing nuclear power as a major cause?

Calculations

• On average, about 4 Mega amps of lightning is discharged from atmosphere to earth each second.[refs 7,8]
• Number of Kr-85 decays per second (in 2005)[refs 9-10]:
  = Number of decays per m³s^-1 × total weight of air (kg) / weight 1m³ air
  = 1.3 × 5.15 . 10¹⁸ / 1.225 = 5.47 . 10¹⁸
• Number of Kr-85 decay ionizations per second (in 2005) = 2 × 5.47 . 10¹⁸ = 1.094 . 10¹⁹
• Global lightning discharges, per second:
  = number of amps discharged per second × number of elementary charges in one coulomb
  = 4 × 10⁶ × 6.241 × 10¹⁸ = 2.4964 × 10²⁵ [measured in elementary charges!]
• Ratio of lightning discharge to Kr-85 ionizations = 2.284 × 10⁶ = 2.3 million to 1 (in 2005)

So I'm baffled how a trace amount of krypton-85, decaying with a half-life of 10.7 years, can make such a great change to atmospheric ionization effects, given that the discharges due to lightning were 2,284,000 times greater in 2005.

Is Krypton-85 actually increasing? Not according to measurements taken below here: Variability of atmospheric krypton-85 activity concentrations observed close to the ITCZ in the southern hemisphere.

Measurements between August 2007 and May 2010 covered three wet seasons. The mean activity concentration of krypton-85 measured during this period was 1.31±0.02Bqm^-3. A linear model fitted to the average monthly data, using month and monsoon as predictors, shows that krypton-85 activity concentration measured during the sampling period has declined by 0.01Bqm^-3 per year.

Why do I never see climate scientists refuting anti-nuclear power claims such as: "nuclear power causes climate change"? I think many climate scientists seem happy to go along with any old garbage the anti-nuclear power movement come out with. No, I don't really thing that. I think they're totally focussed on the issues of GHG and denier narratives (such as the sun is the main cause of climate change). So much so they just don't care to refute this krypton-85 story.

Refs

krypton-85:

1. because Kr-85 is a trace, its quantity is measured by its decay, which, in 2005, was about 1.3 per second per cubic metre.

Environmentalists

2. "Majia's Blog" : Majia Holmer Nadesan (academic): Strangely Missing: Radionuclides' Effects on Climate
3. "The Seneca Effect" : (Dutch academic blogger): Krypton-85: How nuclear power plants cause climate change
4. "Climate Risks from Nuclear Power. Radioactive Krypton 85: Atmospheric-Electrical and Air-Chemical Effects of Ionizing Radiation in the Atmosphere"
5. "After Cancún: Climate Governance or Climate Conflicts", edited by Elmar Altvater, Achim Brunnengräber, pp178-179 "In addition, nuclear power plants are emitting other gases, which also contribute to climate change. Of all the radioactive materials, the ionization of the air with radioactive noble gas, krypton-85, a product of nuclear fission, is the most intense ..."
6. "The Global Casino, Fifth Edition: An Introduction to Environmental Issues", By Nick Middleton"

lightning:

7. According to: V Rakov, M Uman "Lightning: Physics and Effects", CUP 2003 : An average bolt of lightning carries a negative electric current of 40 kiloamperes (kA) (although some bolts can be up to 120 kA), and transfers a charge of five coulombs and energy of 500 MJ, or enough energy to power a 100-watt lightbulb for just under two months.
8. National Geographic say: "about 100 [lightning bolts] strike Earth's surface every single second"

atmosphere

9. Density of the atmosphere = 1.225 kg/m³
10. The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15 × 10¹⁸ kg
11. Ampere is equivalent to one coulomb (roughly 6.241 × 10¹⁸ times the elementary charge) per second.

Climate science

12. W.L. Boeck "Environmental consequences of atmospheric krypton-85". Final report, January 1, 1977-September 30, 1979
13. Climate risks by radioactive krypton-85 from nuclear fission Atmospheric-electrical and air-chemical effects of ionizing radiation in the atmosphere

What Paul Langley gets wrong

Paul Langley is an Australian anti-nuclear activist. A radiophobe.

Paul Langley: But the lingering danger from residual fuel and fission fallout particles -those which emit Alpha and Beta radiation – exist long after the explosion. Alpha is are not detected very accurately by film badges or dosimeters. For this, specialised Alpha detectors are needed. Although the scientists conducting the atomic tests in Australia at the time knew of these dangers, they chose to concentrate upon the dangers of exposure to Gamma radiation. That is, they were more interested in the immediate effects of the Gamma radiation burst at the time of atomic detonations.

My comment: An atomic blast instantaneously produces a large quantity of gamma, neutron and fission products (radiation). The gamma, neutron are gone after the initial damage they do. Fission products decay producing alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Most fission products have very short half-lives so are quickly gone. After 3 months, radiation from fission product decay is 0.1% of its initial value. Even after 12 hours it's well down. Living tissue is damaged by a large amount of radiation all at once (gamma from the bomb blast). That explains the scientists concerns (above). We're not harmed much at all, by small amounts over a long time. This is what Paul Langley misses. Back in the 1970s we believed that any amount of radiation is harmful. Today we know differently. Our bodies have several repair mechanisms to correct major and minor harm from radiation or anything else which damages DNA.

PS: A Nobel prize was just awarded to the scientists who studied these DNA repair mechanisms.

Jeremy Rifkin - how passé

In this video Jeremy Rifkin says there are 5 reasons why nuclear power is over:

1. Nuclear power does not scale (it can't be built quickly enough)
2. We can't recycle spent fuel nor store it. e.g. "Yucca mountain is cracked" and can't be used as a waste repository
3. There's not enough uranium
4. We can not use plutonium, and keeping it leads to uncertainty and terrorism.
5. There's not enough water to cool reactors.
   Just before he stops talking, he remembers he wanted to make 6 points:
6. Nuclear power is centralized it does fit the new technologies which are "distributed, collaborative and laterally scaled".

Let's refute Rifkin's points, one by one:

1. After fossil fuels, nuclear power is the most scalable electricity generation source
2. Waste disposal
   • Recycling. A number of new reactor designs are being designed to run on spent fuel. e.g. the IMSR by Canadians: Terrestrial Energy:
   • Waste disposal. This isn't an issue. The amount of waste produced by a nuclear power plant is quite small. We can reduce it over 30-fold by closing the uranium fuel cycle. We already have the technology to do that.
3. The world's oceans contain 4 billion tonnes of uranium. This can be extracted for about $600/kg which is a low enough price to make it economic. New uranium resources are being discovered as I write. E.g. the huge new reserves recently announced in Iran.
   We don't have to rely only on uranium. Thorium is 3.5 times more abundant than uranium, and it too can also be used in nuclear fission reactors.
4. Plutonium.
   • We can use plutonium. Plutonium works very well in fast reactors such as sodium cooled reactors (e.g. the design Bill Gates is developing, the GE-Hitachi PRISM), or molten salt fast reactors (e.g. British Moltex design, and Europe's EVOL. Plutonium even works in conventional reactors as MOX fuel.
   • Plutonium is not a major terrorism risk. Ordinary plutonium cannot be used to make atomic bombs because it has too many of the wrong impurities. Contrary to press reports: "Dirty bombs" are not considered to be a serious threat either.
5. Not every nuclear reactor needs water for cooling, but there's plenty of water anyway. Reactors built next to the sea will probably continue to use water cooling.
6. "distributed, collaborative and laterally scaled"
   -- Hey man, have a toke on my reefer, and invent some kewl new energy paradigms of your own!

Rifkin should stop making stuff up and deal with reality instead.

Links

1. A Green Road: Jeremy Rifkin - Five Reasons Why Nuclear Power is a Dead-End Business Model
2. Historic Paths to Decarbonization
3. IMSR: Terrestrial Energy's Integral Molten Salt Reactor - by Dr. David LeBlanc @ TEAC7
4. Iran finds huge new supply of uranium
5. China to help Bill Gates develop "pioneering" nuclear reactor
6. the GE-Hitachi PRISM
7. British Moltex fast molten salt reactor design
8. European EVOL fast molten salt reactor design
9. Copenhagen Atomics Thorium Molten Salt Reactor
10. Weapons grade plutonium can only be made in special military grade reactors
11. Israel tests ‘dirty bombs,’ finds they pose no substantial danger
12. Dry cooling for nuclear power plants

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is not science it's junk science.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model recognises that even a small amount of radiation produces a small amount of damage.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is not science it's junk science. There never was any legitimate foundation for the theory and, in fact, the original purveyors of BEIR I made several mistakes, touching on actual fraud.⁽¹⁾

There's never been a scientific consensus on radiation risk.⁽²⁾ LNT was always a theory lacking evidential support aka a "hypothesis". The only reason LNT even became a theory in the first place was because it was easiest thing to model. All 3 fundamental assumptions in LNT were formulated to make it easy to model:

1. Linear
2. No-threshold
3. Dose-response is additive over time.

Only the first assumption is approximately valid. The 3rd assumption is clearly nonsense w.r.t. radiation because radionuclides are generally not concentrated when taken up in the food chain, and actual exposure to radioactivity is not additive. The 2nd assumption (no-threshold) was always disputed too.

OK, so those are some arguments against LNT, why why am I calling it junk science? It's junk science because non-scientists, and non-radiation specialists rely on it to scare-monger over radiation and nuclear power.

References:

1. Edward Calabrese challenges Science Magazine to right a 59 year-old case of scientific misconduct
2. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low-doses of ionizing radiation, by Maurice Tubiana, André Aurengo, 2005
3. Nor does enforcing LNT for radiation make any sense. Better safe than sorry is an idiotic policy too: Radiation Risk and Ethics, by Zbigniew Jaworowski

Green FUD about new Vogle Nuclear plants spins revenue into costs.

The projected revenues from the two new nuclear plants at Vogle, Georgia, USA were calculated to be $65 billion over a 60 year projected plant lifetime¹. Each plant is 1117 MWe in capacity (net). Assuming a conservative 90% capacity is reached². They can be expected to generate 1056.77 TWh of electricity, or 1056.77 billion units (a 'unit' is a kWh in Britain)³. The expected revenue works out at US 6.15¢ per kWh. In Britain my current electricity tariff is 14.04p per kWh (equivalent to: 21.9¢/kWh)⁴. So I'm paying 3.56 times the cost of Vogle electricity. I should be so lucky to have such low cost nuclear power.

The electricity cost above assume the new Vogle reactors (units 3 and 4) will undergo a cost overrun. Total costs to build them are projected at USD $7.5 billion.⁵. Even with a cost overrun Vogle plants will still make cheap electricity. One might think this is good news. Perhaps we should break open a bottle of Prosecco or Cava? No such luck. At least two green websites have spun this revenue projection by Bobbie Baker into "a case study of nuclear power’s staggeringly awful economics"^6,7.

They took Baker's expected revenue and turned it into expected costs! In the source they cited, Bobbie Baker is quoted saying: "The current total revenue requirement for the Project is approximately $65 billion"¹. This was spun into: Vogtle: at $65 billion and counting, it’s a case study of nuclear power’s staggeringly awful economics⁶. Some people have blinkered vision. They're so certain that nuclear power is expensive, their minds turn revenue into costs, and their prophecies are fulfilled.

Notes:

1. To get the quote for $65 billion (what Commissioner Baker said):
   1. Follow this link: Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP Lawline Alerts
   2. Click on the link for "Georgia Utility Update – July 2015"
2. US nuclear power plants had an average capacity factor of 91.8% in 2014. See: US nuclear plants set capacity factor record in 2014: industry group
3. 2 × 1.117 GWe × 365 × 24 × 60 × 90% = 1056771.36 GWh
4. My tariff of 14.04p includes the effect of a standing charge. See: EdF Energy 'Unit rate comparison'
5. Plant Vogtle nuclear reactors expected to cost $7.5bn
6. Vogtle: at $65 billion and counting, it’s a case study of nuclear power’s staggeringly awful economics,
7. Atlanta Progressive News: Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Total Cost Is 65 Billion Dollars, Former Commissioner Says

Interesting online discussion I unearthed on the AREVA EPR

The question of why the EPR is turning out to be so much more expensive than other reactors is interesting. It looks like the EPR has overspecified safety requirements. For example: rather that just be certain the core could not melt in the event of an accident, the designers went one step further and built a core catcher in as well. Some people blame German Greens for the design complexity: (here:)

lion :

The EPR must meet the security demands of the ASN and, above all, the demands voiced by the German Green politician, Jürgen Trittin, who made the restrictions applying to the design and build so severe that it is almost unfeasible. So I wonder whether the EPR is not “over secure” in terms of design and build, a fact that would not even mean that it is optimally secure when it comes to operations.

Jürgen Trittin is a German Green politician. He was Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety from October 1998 to November 2005 in Germany. Angela Merkel was the Minister before him: From November 1994 to October 1998. [ Merkel was and is a pro-nuclear power person. ]

It seems to me that the design was substantially complete before 1998 when the Greens took over control of the German energy ministry. See this PDF report, which has some history and these NRC slides. The design continued from 1997 to 1999 with an updated "Basic Design Report" for the EPR issued in February 1999.