They were labelled a waste of time and money, but in 1957 the bulging tips of two exhaust shafts rising above Sellafield arguably saved much of northern England from becoming a nuclear wasteland. The towers of Windscale Piles have been a landmark for decades but soon the last of these Cold War relics will be gone.

Cumbria's skyline will change with the removal of the towers - known as Cockcroft's Follies - but had they not been in place 57 years ago, the entire landscape may have been drastically different.

Despite the remarkably small amount of used fuel generated by nuclear power, despite the fact that the penetrating radiation in that fuel is effectively gone in 600 years, after which the fuel would have to be swallowed to be harmful, the nuclear establishment is adamant that long-lived radionuclides are an extremely difficult waste problem, requiring deca-billion dollar investments in deep geologic repositories. And even then they are a lurking, barely contained danger. //

Tc-99 is regularly injected into medical patients as a by-product of Tc-99 imaging Tc-99m is by far the most popular form of internal gamma imaging. Reference \cite{doe-1996} says ``a total of approximately 38,000 diagnostic procedures involving radioactive isotopes are performed each day in the U.S. Most of these procedures use Tc-99m." Tc-99m has a decay half-life of 6 hours and a specific activity of 19.5e17 Bq/g, 300 million times higher than the Tc-99 to which it decays. It emits a 141 keV gamma. Yet it is approved by the FDA for all sorts of diagnostic purposes, including children. The approved dose varies with use; but in many cases it is in excess 1.0e9 Bq or about 52 nanograms of Tc-99m. This would be 65 mGy to the body and 3.45 Gy to the thyroid.

EPA correctly says this is safe because of the short decay half-life and the fact that the biological half-life is about 1 day.\cite{epa-2002} Every atom of Tc-99m that decays produces an atom of Tc-99. The EPA claims Tc-99 is hazardous because of its long decay half-life.\cite{epa-2002} Yet Tc-99 has the same 1 day biological half life as Tc-99m. The dose the patient receives from the supposedly hazardous Tc-99 is about 100 millionth of the dose the patient receives from the Tc-99m. The medical profession for once is correctly unconcerned. //

The repository studies are exercises in monumental hubris. The idea that we can predict what will happen 100 years from now is preposterous. The idea that we can predict what will happen 1000 years from now --- well, there is just no word for it. And then we assume this omniscient species which can foretell the future for millenia, all of a sudden forgets how to measure radiation.

The humble, prudent, common sense approach is;

1) Shield and cool the used fuel adequately. We know how to do this. It is not difficult.

2) Keep the material where you can repair the shielding as necessary.

3) In no more than 600 years, effectively all the penetrating radiation will be gone. The valuable fissile and fertile isotopes can easily be extracted. The remainder will be low level waste that can be landfilled.

Forget about predicting the future for millenia and trying to come up with a system that will last that long.

Under the current limits, set by NASA in 1989, the effective dose limit for an astronaut's career is based on a maximum 3% lifetime excess risk of cancer mortality. That risk is evaluated with a sliding scale based on age and sex, ranging from a lower career limit of 180 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation for a 30-year-old woman to an upper career limit of 700 mSv for a 60-year-old man.

So why is there a lower career limit for radiation exposure for female astronauts than for male astronauts?

According to R. Julian Preston, a special government employee with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Protection division, NASA's lower radiation threshold for female astronauts was based on the following finding: When women and men were exposed to high levels of radiation for similar periods of time, women had more than twice the risk that men did of developing lung cancer. //

"It has been generally considered — based largely on the survivors from the atomic bombs in Japan — that, particularly for lung cancer, that women were more sensitive" to ionizing radiation than men were, Preston, who serves on committees for the National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements, told Live Science. //

However, NASA's radiation thresholds are expected to change in the near future. In 2021, NASA asked a panel of experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to assess the space agency's plan to change its career radiation limit to 600 mSv for all astronauts of all ages. NASA determined that limit by applying the agency's cancer risk model to the most susceptible individuals: early-career women. NASA calculated the average risk of exposure-induced death for this group and converted that risk, which allows for a much larger margin of error than previously, to a dose. That 600-mSv dose translates to the exposure an astronaut would receive during four six-month expeditions on the ISS. For comparison, the average annual dose of radiation received by a person on Earth is about 3.6 mSv, according to NASA, versus 300 mSv per year on the ISS.

Radiofrequency radiation is relatively low-energy, and it can't break chemical bonds. Like the nearby microwave frequencies, it can heat tissues. But we're not aware of any mechanisms beyond heating by which radiation at these wavelengths can damage human tissue. And there's no evidence at the population level indicating that radiation from these sources poses any sort of risk.

5G is no different. It does transmit on different frequencies in some situations. But these frequencies are generally blocked by things like walls, and they are also low enough energy that they won't cause molecules to break apart. Also, no, 5G does not make you more vulnerable to COVID-19 by weakening your immune system, nor do 5G signals give rise to the virus itself. //

By contrast, the adverse effects of ionizing radiation are well-known and well-documented. Ions are just electrically charged atoms. Cations have more protons than electrons and hence have a positive charge, while anions ("negative ions") have a negative charge because there are more electrons than protons. High-energy rays can knock electrons off of atoms, and the resulting free electrons then collide with other atoms to create even more ions. This can cause unnatural chemical reactions in living cells, breaking apart DNA chains so that the cell either dies or mutates to become cancerous.

That's why many scientists who worked with X-rays in the early days after their discovery lost their hair and developed cancerous tumors. Marie Curie was exposed to radioactive elements through her experiments, and she liked to carry around vials of radium because the glowing tubes looked like "fairy lights" at night. She eventually died of aplastic anemia linked to that radiation.

The ionizing radiation emitted by the quantum pendant and similar products is significantly lower, as the ANVS acknowledges, but prolonged continuous wear could nonetheless be harmful. Back in 2016, Amal Graafstra, who founded the biohacking supply company Dangerous Things, tested a "negative ion" silicon wristband by placing it against a Geiger counter. He discovered the band was emitting more than 2 microsieverts (or 0.000002 sieverts) of radiation every hour.

That's well below the 1-sievert threshold needed to cause radiation sickness, but if one wore the band for 24 hours, it's roughly equivalent to getting five dental X-rays in a single day. Wear it 24 hours a day for a year—as someone who fears 5G exposure might do—and you'll be exposed to 21.9 millisieverts, which is half the maximum permitted exposure for radiation workers in the US. Small wonder that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned of the potential dangers associated with wearing such products over a long period of time.

It’s been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck Fukushima on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing thousands of deaths and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world’s worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster.

When the 14-metre wave flooded the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it shut down emergency generators, triggering a series of heat-induced meltdowns. Now, the Japanese government’s decision to allow the release of more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the plant into the ocean has divided opinion. //

But since the tsunami hit in 2011, authorities have used more than a million tonnes of water to try and cool the plant’s disabled reactors, which are still hot thanks to the long-term release of energy from the nuclear power source. All that radioactive water – which is more contaminated than standard waste water – has to go somewhere. The decision to release it into the oceans is – some would argue – the most pragmatic long-term solution. //

The process of filtering and diluting the huge amounts of water to meet safety standards will take a few years to complete. Then, we’d usually expect the water to be released gradually in small volumes through coastal pipelines. That way, any potential effects of releasing the radioactive waste will be minimised. However, the fact is that we don’t know exactly what those effects will be on marine – or human – life, given the sheer volume of water set to be released from the Fukushima plant.

Our own research has shown that a number of marine species could have their DNA damaged through extended exposure to radionuclides in seawater. It’s important to note that our conclusions are mostly drawn from studies in the lab, rather than in the real world; when a nuclear accident takes place, human safety takes priority and biological assessment often takes place decades after the original event.

One new study found that radiation exposure didn't genetically harm future generations, while another offers insights into how radiation causes thyroid cancer. //

On this day in 1986, workers ran a safety test at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine. But the test went awry, starting a fire in a reactor and leading to one of the largest nuclear disasters in history. Smoke from the fire and a second explosion launched radioactive elements into the atmosphere, scattering them over the surrounding fields and towns. Now, 35 years later, scientists are still uncovering the extent of the damage and starting to answer questions about the long-term legacy of radiation exposure on power plant workers, the people in the nearby community, and even their family members born years later.

Fast neutron reactors to burn up used fuel and breed additional fuel -- sodium or lead cooled

The “electrosensitive” are moving to a cellphone-free town. But is their disease real?

You can turn your phone on in Green Bank, W.Va., but you won’t get a trace of a signal. If you hit scan on your car’s radio, it’ll cycle through the dial endlessly, never pausing on a station. This remote mountainous town is inside the U.S. National Radio Quiet Zone, a 13,000–square-mile area where most types of electromagnetic radiation on the radio spectrum (which includes radio and TV broadcasts, Wi-Fi networks, cell signals, Bluetooth, and the signals used by virtually every other wireless device) are banned to minimize disturbance around the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, home to the world’s largest steerable radio telescope. //

As The New Yorker recently pointed out in a blog post, EHS, along with these types of episodes, hint at the bizarre power of the nocebo effect: the flip-side of the placebo effect, in which inert substances or the suggestion of harm brings about real physical symptoms. In many studies of the nocebo effect, simply explaining to patients that a pill might trigger side effects has been enough to cause everything from back pain to erectile dysfunction. “If you believe that a substance, compound, or phenomena harms you, and you start experiencing symptoms, there’s confirmation for your belief right there, and then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Brian Dunning, a prominent skeptic who hosts the Skeptoid podcast and frequently takes on pseudoscientific claims, told me. “You see that your phone has a signal or that there’s a Wi-Fi router in the room, it further increases your stress level, and you have very real and very distressing physical symptoms. Once you have this confirming experience, it becomes really difficult to sit there and be told otherwise.”

Our brains’ expectations, it turns out, have a surprisingly potent effect on the functioning of our bodies. If the people who moved to Green Bank truly suffer from piercing headaches, nausea, and dizziness when they are around wireless signals, the nocebo effect (and previous instances of mass psychogenic diseases) is as good an explanation of anything we have so far.

Radioactivity Unit Conversion Tool Tool

Dose Unit Conversion Tool

Exposure Unit Conversion Tool Tool

In 2015, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science who was one of the co-authors of the 2013 letter, reiterated his belief that nuclear must be part of any emissions-reduction effort. “The goal is not to make a renewable energy system. The goal is to make the most environmentally advantageous system that we can, while providing us with affordable power,” Caldeira said. “And there’s only one technology I know of that can provide carbon-free power when the sun’s not shining and the wind’s not blowing at the scale that modern civilization requires. And that’s nuclear power.” //

By the mid-2020s, the US could prematurely retire as much as a third of its installed nuclear capacity. What’s driving the retirements? Low-cost natural gas is a major factor. In addition, nuclear plants must compete in the wholesale market with heavily subsidized electricity produced from wind and solar. Add in aging reactors, post-Fukushima regulations, and the never-ending opposition from big environmental groups, and the US nuclear sector has been taking a beating.
The closure of these plants has been cheered by the well-funded opponents of nuclear energy. For decades, nuclear energy’s foes have relied on three main criticisms to justify their opposition: radiation, waste, and cost. //

The facts show that the accident at Fukushima led to exactly two deaths. About three weeks after the tsunami hit the reactor complex, the bodies of two workers were recovered at the plant. They didn’t die of radiation. They drowned. //

In 2013, the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation released a report which found that “No radiation-related deaths have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers involved at the accident site. Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable in the years to come.” (Thyroid cancer is among the most common maladies caused by excessive exposure to radiation.) The UN committee was made up of 80 scientists from 18 countries. //

the one thing that we have learnt from both Chernobyl and Fukushima is that it actually wasn’t radiation that’s done the health damage to the people in the surrounding areas. It’s their fear of radiation. There’s been far more psychological damage than there has actually physical damage because of the two accidents.”

The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear
By: Petr Beckmann (1979)

Softcover, 190 pages

Golem Press

The ongoing demolition of the San Onofre nuclear plant has long fueled unease among locals over the periodic release of diluted, radioactive material from the reactor into this iconic surfing spot’s waters.

Such dumping has been going on since the 1960s, for years without public notice.

That was until 2019, when state regulators required the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) parent company — Southern California Edison — to publicly notify surrounding communities of such releases.

Since then, 16 such releases have occurred, with 48-hour notices to the public and nearby communities, according to the company.

Each time, Edison places potentially radioactive wastewater from the company’s decommissioning activities into a tank, circulates it through ion exchangers and filters, “highly” dilutes it, and then samples the liquid for safety before it’s released more than a mile offshore. //

These radioactive liquid releases will continue as SONGS is deconstructed and will vary in size over the years, according to Edison. The size of such releases were initially known to average around 20,000-25,000 gallons of water, and may become larger in the future.

Over the last decade, Michael and his colleagues have constructed a new paradigm that views prosperity, cheap energy and nuclear power as the keys to environmental progress. A book he co-wrote (with Ted Nordhaus) in 2007, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, was called by Wired magazine “the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,” while Time Magazine called him a “hero of the environment.”

Radiation Units and Conversion

Florida’s highways have frequently been built on a foundation of chicanery and political foolishness. //

now we may soon see Florida roads that are built on something new: radioactive waste from phosphate mines.

When phosphate companies turn their mined rock into fertilizer, they produce about five tons of phosphogypsum waste to every ton of fertilizer. Since 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned using that phosphogypsum waste for construction projects or anything else because it exceeds the level of radioactivity regarded as safe for humans.

Heavy water is oxygen and the deuterium isotope of hydrogen. Here's a look at whether heavy water is radioactive and whether it is safe to drink. //

Just because heavy water isn't radioactive doesn't mean it's completely safe to drink. If you ingested enough heavy water, the biochemical reactions in your cells would be affected by the difference in the mass of the hydrogen atoms and how well they form hydrogen bonds.

You could consume a single glass of heavy water without suffering any major ill effects... //

Theoretically, you'd have to replace 20 to 50% of the regular hydrogen in your body with deuterium to experience symptoms ranging from distressing to catastrophic. For mammals, replacing 20% of the body's water with heavy water is survivable (although not recommended); 25% causes sterilization, and about 50% replacement is lethal.2

Melanin is known to absorb light and dissipate ultraviolet radiation, but in the fungi, it seemed to also be absorbing radiation and converting it into chemical energy for growth, perhaps in a similar fashion to how plants utilize the green pigment chlorophyll to attain energy from photosynthesis.

Plasma shocks are the primary means of accelerating electrons in planetary and astrophysical settings throughout the universe. Which category of shocks, quasi-perpendicular or quasi-parallel, accelerates electrons more efficiently is debated. Although quasi-perpendicular shocks are thought to be more efficient electron accelerators, relativistic electron energies recently observed at quasi-parallel shocks exceed theoretical expectations. Using in situ observations at Earth’s bow shock, we show that such relativistic electrons are generated by the interaction between the quasi-parallel shock and a related nonlinear structure, a foreshock transient, through two betatron accelerations. Our observations show that foreshock transients, overlooked previously, can increase electron acceleration efficiency at a quasi-parallel shock by an order of magnitude. Thus, quasi-parallel shocks could be more important in generating relativistic electrons, such as cosmic ray electrons, than previously thought.

A NEW SOURCE OF SPACE RADIATION: Astronauts are surrounded by danger: hard vacuum, solar flares, cosmic rays. Researchers from UCLA have just added a new item to the list. Earth itself.

“A natural particle accelerator only 40,000 miles above Earth’s surface is producing ‘killer electrons’ moving close to the speed of light,” says Terry Liu, a newly-minted PhD who studied the phenomenon as part of his thesis with UCLA Prof. Vassilis Angelopoulos.

This means that astronauts leaving Earth for Mars could be peppered by radiation coming at them from behind–from the direction of their own home planet.

NASA’s THEMIS spacecraft ran across the particles in 2008 not far from the place where the solar wind slams into Earth’s magnetic field. Researchers have long known that shock waves at that location could accelerate particles to high energies–but not this high. The particles coming out of the Earth-solar wind interface have energies up to 100,000 electron volts, ten times greater than previously expected.

How is this possible? Liu found the answer by combining THEMIS data with computer simulations of the sun-Earth interface. When the solar wind meets Earth, it forms a shock wave around Earth’s magnetic field, shaped like the bow waves that form ahead of a boat moving through water. Within this “bow shock” immense stores of energy can be abruptly released akin to the sonic boom of an airplane.

Liu found that some electrons are shocked not just once, but twice or more, undergoing mirror-like reflections within the bow shock that build energy to unexpected levels. Most of the boosted particles shoot back into space away from Earth.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is set to launch operations in 2025 //

Achieving controlled fusion reactions that net more power than they take to generate, and at commercial scale, is seen as a potential answer to climate change. Fusion energy would eliminate the need for fossil fuels and solve the intermittency and reliability concerns inherent with renewable energy sources. The energy would be generated without the dangerous amounts of radiation that raises concerns about fission nuclear energy. ///

As if the sun doesn't spew ionizing nuclear radiation? Fusion creates more, and more dangerous ionizing radiation than fission, it just doesn't leave behind all the radioactive actinides that fission creates.

This is a scientific journal, not USA Today. Don't be lazy.