Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Sources – How Many People Did Nuclear Energy Kill?
We are happy and grateful that Our World In Data supported us in this video. Their article “What are the safest sources of energy?” has been an inspiration for us when putting this script together. We especially thank Hannah Ritchie from the OWID team for providing further insight and data.
Our World in Data:
– Nuclear energy has been a thing since 1951 and since then, there have been around 30 reported accidents globally.
The first reactor ever going on the grid was the EBR-I in Idaho, USA.
#Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory, EBR-I (Experimental Breeder Reactor-I)
https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/frt.shtml
Quote: “EBR-I ushered in a new era in nuclear history when it became the first reactor to generate usable amounts of electricity from nuclear energy. It accomplished this feat on December 20, 1951 by lighting four light bulbs. The next day, EBR-I's output was boosted to 100 kW(e).”
Since then, there have been about 30 accidents globally:
#IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, Nuclear Accident Knowledge Taxonomy, 2016
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1730_web.pdf
Quote: “There have been about 30 incidents and accidents since the first accident was recorded at Chalk River, Canada, in 1952. Primarily, the three most serious and well documented accidents were used for the development of the nuclear accident knowledge taxonomy. “
Different figures are reported for the total number of nuclear accidents. This discrepancy stems from the different frameworks that are used to classify a nuclear event as an accident. Not all events have similar consequences and there are frameworks that compile criteria to classify events as accidents, incidents, anomalies or deviations. Here we refer to a broader definition of accident based on the INES framework (International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale). INES rates nuclear events from 0 to 7 based on various criteria like amount of released radioactive material, levels of exposure, number of deaths and injuries. Events rated with 4-7 are defined as accidents, 2-3 as incidents, 1 as anomaly. So far only two accidents are rated with 7: Fukushima and Chernobyl. There have been around 30 events rated 2 and higher.
#International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES)
https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/international-nuclear-and-radiological-event-scale
The following list shows the nuclear accidents mapped in the video.
#Guardian, Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank#data
– Most of them were pretty minor compared to the two disasters everybody is familiar with: Fukushima and Chernobyl.
#IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, Nuclear Accident Knowledge Taxonomy, 2016
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1730_web.pdf
Quote: “The global nuclear industry has experienced three major nuclear accidents, which have strongly influenced the nuclear industry1, each with different internal damage to the reactor core, different levels of radioactive release to the environment and different actions taken to deal with the emergency: the Three Mile Island accident (1979), the Chernobyl accident (1986) and the Fukushima Daiichi accident (2011).”
– Chernobyl is undoubtedly the worst nuclear accident in history for a number of reasons: the reactor technology was old and ill prepared for emergencies, and the government response was slow and more concerned about image than damage control.
The latest report of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) provides an extensive review and evaluation of the accident:
#Nuclear Energy Agency, Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts (2002), 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13598
Quote: "Unfortunately, this test, which was considered to concern essentially the non-nuclear part of the power plant, was carried out without a proper exchange of information and co-ordination between the team in charge of the test and the personnel in charge of the operation and safety of the nuclear reactor. Therefore, inadequate safety precautions were included in the test programme and the operating personnel were not alerted to the nuclear safety implications and potential danger of the electrical test."
The following article explores why the government was not able to act on the event in the most appropriate and fastest way possible:
#Geist E., Political Fallout: The Failure of Emergency Management at Chernobyl', 2015.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5612/slavicreview.74.1.104?seq=1
Quote: “While the USSR's civil defense organization urged prompt and decisive measures to inform the population of the accident and move people out of harm's way, other Soviet institutions, such as the Communist Party and the KGB, feared the accident's threat to their legitimacy more than its implications for public health.”
– Still only 31 people died directly in the accident.
#Nuclear Energy Agency, Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts (2002), 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13598
Quote: “The acute health effects occurred among the plant personnel and the persons who intervened in the emergency phase to fight fires, provide medical aid and immediate clean-up operations. A total of 31 people died as a consequence of the accident, and about 140 people suffered various degrees of radiation sickness and radiation-related acute health impairment. No members of the general public suffered these kinds of effects.”
– Here things get really complicated because you dip right into controversy and just discussing the different estimates and how they were calculated deserves a video of its own. The most pessimistic estimate comes from a study commissioned by the European Green party and projects up to 60,000 premature deaths by the year 2065. Most scientific studies come up with numbers much lower than this. The WHO has estimated that in total the long term death toll will be around 4000. While the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded that even this figure could be too high. For more details on this check our research document.
There are a multitude of reports providing different estimates on the death toll.
We will cite three of them here and then give some context on why their numbers are so different. This is a super complex topic, so this section is especially long and detailed – to make it easier for you to find your way around we added little headlines for the different parts:
Most pessimistic estimate: 60,000 deaths from European Green Party
Lower estimate: 4,000 deaths from WHO
Moderate estimate: 14,000 deaths from Cardis et al.
Updates on various reports since then
Opinion of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
Why are the numbers so different?
1) Most pessimistic estimate: 60,000 deaths from European Green Party
The most pessimistic estimate is between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths. It comes from this working paper, called the TORCH-Report, sponsored by Rebecca Harms, who sits in the European Parliament for the European Green Party and it is also supported by the Altner-Combecher Foundation. Their primary aim was to create an independent report that wasn’t funded by the UN, IAEA or WHO:
#Fairlie and Sumner, The Other Report On Chernobyl (TORCH), 2006
http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf
Quote: “I [Rebecca Harms] decided to commission an independent analysis of the IAEA/WHO reports in order to clarify the science basis for the assertions.”
Quote: ”Depending on the risk factor used (ie the risk of fatal cancer per person sievert), the TORCH Report estimates that the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths, 7 to 15 times the figure release in the IAEA’s press statement.”
The report estimates the exposure to radioactive fission products to be higher and considers the risks for the population of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia as well as Europe and the rest of the world. By multiplying the dose and the risk factor, the two authors arrive at a total of 30,000 to 60,000 additional cancer deaths worldwide by 2056. The method behind the study is based on the assumption that any small dose has an impact and that the time during which the radiation dose was absorbed is not relevant - but this assumption is strongly doubted.
(We will explain the different approaches of various reports in more detail later here in the sources.)
2) Lower estimate: 4,000 deaths from WHO
A WHO report was published in 2005 by the joint efforts of the IAEA, the WHO, UNDP, FAO, UNEP, UN-OCHA, UNSCEAR, the World Bank and the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. The estimate here was around 4,000 deaths, much lower than the 60,000 deaths estimated by the report above.
#The Chernobyl Forum, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts, 2005.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/093/36093263.pdf?r=1
Quote: “The total number of people that could have died or could die in the future due to Chernobyl originated exposure over the lifetime of emergency workers and residents of most contaminated areas is estimated to be around 4 000. This total includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in 1986 and other causes in later years; 9 children who died of thyroid cancer; and an estimated 3 940 people that could die from cancer contracted as a result of radiation exposure. The latter number accounts for the 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers from 1986–1987, 116 000 evacuees, and 270 000 residents of most contaminated areas.”
This estimate is based on another study which was conducted a decade before. It was sponsored by European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the World Health Organization and was the first study of this scale accounting for the long term consequences of the accident after 10 years:
#Cardis et al., Estimated long term health effects of the Chernobyl Accident (in One decade after Chernobyl: Summing up the consequences of the accident),1996
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1001_web.pdf
Quote: “The total lifetime numbers of excess cancers will be greatest among the 'liquidators' (emergency and recovery workers) and among the residents of 'contaminated' territories, of the order of 2000 to 4600 among each group (the size of the exposed populations is 200 000 liquidators and 6 800 000 residents of 'contaminated' areas). ”
The following table shows the predictions for the estimated excess deaths from various cancers as a result of the accident.
3) Moderate estimate: 14,000 deaths from Cardis et al.
Shortly after the 2005 WHO report, another study investigated the human cancer burden in the whole of Europe. It was conducted by the same principle author as the 1996 study which only investigated the areas Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and estimated 9,000 deaths from cancer among the most exposed populations in these regions. This more recent report estimates about 14,000 deaths until 2065 due to cancers other than leukemia, thyroid cancer and nonmelanoma skin cancer.
#Cardis et al., Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident, 2006.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ijc.22037
Quote: “The total predicted number of cases possibly attributable to Chernobyl in Europe (whose population was more 570 million people in 1986) up to 2065 is large in absolute terms, about 23,000 for all cancers excluding leukemia, thyroid cancer and nonmelanoma skin cancer (including 4,500 cases of breast cancer)and 2,400 for leukemia (Table I). An additional 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer are predicted from 131I exposure (Table II). The predicted number of deaths up to 2065 is about 14,000 for all cancers excluding leukemia, thyroid cancer and nonmelanoma skin cancer (including 2,000 from breast cancer) and about 1,700 for leukemia. These estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty,as reflected by the 95% uncertainty intervals.“
The three reports above estimated different numbers and this caused confusion about how to properly account for the deaths. The next commentary on the 2006 study above explains the relation between the three reports and dissects where the confusion comes from. It criticizes WHO for putting the estimate 4,000 forward without giving the full context.
#Special Report: Counting the dead, Nature, 2006.
https://www.nature.com/articles/440982a
4) Updates on various reports since then
Since then, the debate has been ongoing, and many of the reports have been revised and updated.
A couple of months later, the WHO published a revised version of the original 2005-report, putting the estimate of 4,000 deaths in a more cautious way:
#The Chernobyl Forum 2003-2005 (2006)
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf
Quote: “The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most ‘contaminated’ areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 million persons residing in other ‘contaminated’ areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of less than one per cent in cancer mortality.”
But also the TORCH report was revised and modified their numbers from 60,000 death cases globally to 40,000 death cases Europe-wide.
The TORCH Report was updated in 2016 to reflect the more recent evidence centered on the health impact. (It was commissioned by GLOBAL 2000/ Friends of the Earth Austria and financed by the Vienna Ombuds Office for Environmental Protection.)
#Fairlie I., TORCH-2016, An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 2016.
https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/GLOBAL_TORCH%202016_rz_WEB_KORR.pdf
Quote: “Assuming the risk of cancer is directly proportional to dose with no threshold (i.e. LNT), it follows that the number of future cancer deaths can be estimated as the simple product of the collective dose x the accepted risk factor which is widely observed – currently this is 10% per sievert for fatal cancer, as DDREFs are no longer applied (see Box B on page 61).
Therefore this report estimates that 400,000 x 0.1 = 40,000 fatal cancers will arise in Europe between now and 2065. This is similar to but lower than the figure estimated in TORCH 2006 report but that was for the world not just Europe.(TORCH (2006) had estimated up to 60,000 fatal cancers.) This report’s central estimate of 40,000 fatal cancers in Europe is slightly higher than the upper bound in the recent 16,000 (6,700 to 38,000) estimate by Professor Cardis (2015).”
(DDREF: Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor)
In the following table, they compare their estimation of 40,000 to the estimates from the previous reports.
However, in this report as well, authors point to the large margin of uncertainties on these estimations. They refer to the Cardis et al. (2005) study and mention their estimates are comparable given the uncertainty range.
5) Opinion of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
Since there are so many uncertainties of applied modelling approaches, the 2008-report published by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) refrains from providing any concrete numbers. Yet, it suggests that previous estimates on the health impacts of the accident are likely to overestimate the true death toll.
#Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Annex D Health Effects Due to the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, UNSCEAR, 2008.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
Quote: “The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outline in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied.”
6) Why are the numbers so different?
So how is it even possible that the estimates differ so widely? There are many different factors going into the models that estimate the number of fatal cancers. However, four main factors that cause the numbers to differ are:
The extent of the area exposed to the radiation:
This one is the major factor causing the difference among the studies. Some studies take only the nearby countries into account where smaller populations were exposed to higher doses of radiation. While others expand the effect into the whole of Europe claiming that low doses can also increase the likelihood of cancer. The latter stand is based on the method ‘Linear no threshold model’ (LNT), which assumes that there is no safe dose of radiation and even lower doses are dangerous. Though many advisory bodies still use this model, scientifically it has been highly debated.
The following graph shows the different radiation-exposure risk models in comparison with LNT:
#Linear-Non-Threshold Model, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2013.
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/linear-non-threshold-model/index.cfm
Quote: “The hypersensitivity model suggests a greater risk at lower doses. The LNT model is the straight line that is extrapolated to zero, meaning that cancer risk will rise with increasing dose. The threshold model implies that below a certain dose, there is no risk. The hormesis model suggests that low radiation doses may even be protective and beneficial.”
Previous assessments – including the WHO estimate of 4000 deaths – applies the modelling approach: linear no-threshold model (LNT). According to this model, increased exposure to even very low doses increases mortality. However, increased radiation for most of the exposed populations was at levels comparable to natural background radiation: there is no clear observable evidence to date that this has increased the incidence of cancers. This does not apply to populations with acute, high levels of exposure where increased incidence was clearly observed.
#Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Annex D Health Effects Due to the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, UNSCEAR, 2008.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
Quote: “As far as whole body doses are concerned, the six million residents of the areas of the former Soviet Union deemed contaminated received average effective doses for the period 1986-2005 of about 9 mSv, whereas for the 98 million people considered in the three republics, the average effective dose was 1.3 mSv, a third of which was received in 1986. This represents an insignificant increase over the dose due to background radiation over the same period (~ 50 mSv). About three quarters of the dose was due to external exposure, the rest being due to internal exposure.”
2. Hereditary effects: Some researchers point out that it is still too early to decide on the numbers since there might be effects seen in the next generations, for instance in the children and grandchildren of the exposed populations back then.
3. Lack of statistical confidence: It is not trivial to determine what ratio of the cancer-related deaths are attributable to accident radiation, and which ones would have occurred without the accident.
4. Early assessments likely overestimated the dose to exposed populations.
#Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Annex D Health Effects Due to the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, UNSCEAR, 2008.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
Quote: “The early assessments of dose to exposed populations based on the measurements available at the time tended to use cautious assumptions about the countermeasures applied and the environmental and dosimetric parameters involved. As a consequence, the doses were generally overestimated.”
– The second big nuclear accident was Fukushima Daiichi in 2011. Fukushima did not only operate with much better technology that was less dangerous in the first place, much better security measures were in place and the official response was fast and decisive.
This study compares the environmental effects of the two accidents. It also summarizes and compares the reasons of accidents and the aftermath:
#Steinhauser G. et al., Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts, 2014.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971301173X
Quote: “Monitoring campaigns after both accidents reveal that the environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident was much greater than that of the Fukushima accident. Both the highly contaminated areas and the evacuated areas are smaller around Fukushima and the projected health effects in Japan are significantly lower than after the Chernobyl accident. This is mainly due to the fact that food safety campaigns and evacuations worked quickly and efficiently after the Fukushima accident. [... ]Japanese authorities managed the evacuation of the population from the potentially affected areas remarkably well and fast.”
The following book also provides a more detailed comparison of the two accidents, particularly in Chapter 2 and 3.
#Steinhauser, G., Koizumi, A., & Shozugawa, K. (Eds.). (2019). Nuclear Emergencies, Current Topics in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine.
https://link-springer-com-443.webvpn.jnu.edu.cn/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8327-4
The reactor illustration in the video is based on the following image:
#World Nuclear Association, Fukushima Daiichi Accident, 2020.
The evacuation zone illustration in the video is based on the following information:
#Waddington I. et al., J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782
Quote: “In the hours and days following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident, the Japanese authorities ordered the progressive relocation of those living near to the plant. At 20:50 on 11 March, settlements within 2 km of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station were given the order to relocate (Futaba Town and Okuma Town). By 18:25 the following day (12 March) the relocation radius had been expanded to 20 km (the towns of Futaba, Hirono, Naraha, Okuma and Tomioka and the village of Kawauchi, as well as those residents of Minamisoma City, Tamura City, Namie Town and Katsurao Village living within the 20-km zone). On 25 March, residents between 20 and 30 km of the site—who had been sheltering since 15 March—were advised to begin voluntary relocation. On 22 April, compulsory relocation was extended to specific areas to the north-west of the plant beyond the 20-km zone, extending out to 40 km for Iitate Village”
– And so the current death toll is only 573. The major difference here is that these deaths were not a consequence of radiation. They were indirect deaths from the stress of the evacuation of the areas around the reactors, and occured almost entirely in older populations.
The following report cites the official statements concerning deaths related to the accident.
#Yomiuri Shimbun, Daily Yomiuri Online, 2012.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1234/ML12340A564.pdf
Quote: “A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey. [...] A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster.”
The nuclear accident in Fukushima was triggered by the preceding earthquake and the tsunami. A large number of people within 20 km of the plant had to be evacuated in an atmosphere of panic only a few hours after the earthquake. A rather poorly organised evacuation process put especially the eldery at risk which as a consequence was reflected by the higher number of deaths among this part of the population. Overall, 65% of disaster related deaths were among people over 60 years old. The conditions in the temporary living had worsening effects on the already institutionalized seniors. Also, the long term effects of the large scale relocation introduced further public health problems. Overall more than 150,000 people were relocated after the accident. However, some experts suggested that it would not have been necessary to relocate that many people.
The following studies are evaluating the evacuation process and its effects on elderly:
#Thomas P., May J., Coping after a big nuclear accident, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017303166
Quote: “Meanwhile after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, 111,000 people were required to leave areas declared as restricted and an additional 49,000 joined the exodus voluntarily; about 85,000 had not returned to their homes by 2015.”
#Waddington I. et al., J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782
Quote: “Relocation was unjustified for the 160,000 people relocated after Fukushima.”
#Yasumura S. et al., Excess mortality among relocated institutionalized elderly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 2012.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350612003800?via%3Dihub
Quote: ”The analysis suggests that the impact of a disaster on the excess mortality of institutionalized elderly is most significant in the immediate aftermath, but has a lasting impact due to continuing changes in nutritional, hygienic, medical and general care conditions. This finding of excess mortality reflects the vulnerability of the institutionalized elderly to change, and their need for special attention and care in disaster evacuation. There is a need to prevent excess deaths among this group by improving the disaster guidelines at elderly institutions in Japan. ”
– Estimates of the possible long-term deaths from radiation vary widely: from none at all to about 1000.
We will present three studies, which are frequently referred to and then explain the model they were based on. Since this is a longer source section, like for the sources on Chernobyl above we added in some headlines so you can find your way around easier.
Additionally to giving context about the model used in the studies we are also giving some background information on estimating radiation doses; since radiation exposure is what the death rate estimates are based on.
Three different studies looking at cancer rates related to the accident in Fukushima
Explanation of the Linear No Threshold model the studies are based on
Revisions and ongoing debate about stating death toll estimates at all
Background information about radiation exposure and radiation dose estimates
This study estimates a death toll on the order of 1,000:
#Frank N. von Hippel, The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, 2011.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340211421588
Quote: “The area in Japan contaminated with cesium-137—at the same levels that caused evacuation around Chernobyl—is also about one-tenth as large. The estimated number of resulting cancer deaths in the Fukushima area from contamination due to more than 1 curie per square kilometer is likely to scale correspondingly—on the order of 1,000.”
This study from 2012 gives ~1,000 as the upper limit, but sees the number closer to 130.
#Hoeve and Jacobson, Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, 2012.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/ee/c2ee22019a#!divAbstract
Quote: ”We estimate an additional 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models used in the study. ”
One year later another study was published that sees the number of future deaths more likely to be close to 1,000, the upper range of the study above.
#Beyea J., Lymanb E. and von Hippel F.N, Accounting for long-term doses in “worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident”, 2013.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/ee/c2ee24183h/unauth#!divAbstract
Quote: “On balance, the net result of adjusting the Ten Hoeve and Jacobson numbers to account for long-term dose from radiocesium is uncertain, but the mid-range estimate for the number of future mortalities is probably closer to 1000 than to 125.”
So most of the pessimistic estimates don't exceed ~1,000 deaths in the future. Only one study came up with a higher estimate.
An independent, non-peer reviewed research article reported an estimated 3,000 future fatal cancers. The author also took part in the report on the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident which was criticized by some researchers because of it’s high estimates on long-term deaths. The following table shows this estimate in comparison to other studies.
#Ian Fairlie, Assessing long-term Health Effects from Fukushima’s Radioactive Fallout, 2013.
2. Explanation of the Linear No Threshold model the studies are based on
However, all of the studies mentioned above use the Linear No Threshold model. As mentioned above as well, in the section concerning the long-term deaths due to Chernobyl, this model assumes that there is no safe dose of radioactivity. In other words, according to this model very low doses – even below background dose levels – hold health risks. The model assumes the bigger the dose, the higher the risk – but as the name says, there is supposedly no threshold below which radiation doesn’t cause relevant effects.
Because of this debate the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended not using LNT and collective doses in computation of cancer deaths due to uncertainties.
#ICRP Publication 103, The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2007.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4
Quote: “Collective effective dose is an instrument for optimisation, for comparing radiological technologies and protection procedures. Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological studies, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections. This is because the assumptions implicit in the calculation of collective effective dose (e.g., when applying the LNT model) conceal large biological and statistical uncertainties. Specifically, the computation of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses involving trivial exposures to large populations is not reasonable and should be avoided.”
#United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2012 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, 2012.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2012/UNSCEAR_2012_Report.pdf
Quote: “In general, increases in the incidence of health effects in populations cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation. This is because of the uncertainties associated with the assessment of risks at low doses, the current absence of radiation-specific biomarkers for health effects and the insufficient statistical power of epidemiological studies. Therefore, the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels; ”
3. Revisions and ongoing debate about stating death toll estimates at all
In recent years there have been a number of institutions who argue in favor of not giving any death toll estimates at all because the uncertainties are just too high to say anything definitive. This approach has also been met with criticism – we will take a look at both sides here.
The 2013 UNSCEAR Report for example claimed that the doses do not pose any apparent health effects to the public. Besides, it refrained from stating any estimates on the incidence rate of fatal cancers.
#UNSCEAR, Sources, Effects And Risks Of Ionizing Radiation, Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes VOLUME I Scientific Annex A, 2013
https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/13-85418_Report_2013_Annex_A.pdf
Quote: “The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”
However, the report was criticized because of this statement and because it did not represent estimates of the expected cancer cases. UNSCEAR then published another report in 2015 in which it addressed the critics emphasizing that the 2013 report did not rule out the possibility of excess cases of diseases due to radiation, but they also brought up the same statement of the previous report as ‘no discernible radiation-related increases in rates of leukaemia or breast cancer (two of the most radiogenic cancer types), nor in other types of solid cancer besides possibly thyroid cancer, had been expected’.
Besides, there were not any further estimates on cancer rates in the report. It found that the included more recent studies concerning the health implications to the public are in support of the 2013 report.
#UNSCEAR, Developments Since The 2013 Unscear Report On The Levels And Effects Of Radiation Exposure Due To The Nuclear Accident Following The Great East-japan Earthquake And Tsunami, 2015.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2015/UNSCEAR_WP_2015.pdf
Quote: “In its commentary, the Committee used the phrase “no discernible increase” to express the idea that currently available methods would most likely not be able to demonstrate an increased incidence in the future disease statistics (i.e. an increased frequency of disease occurrence) due to irradiation. The 2013 Fukushima report made clear that the use of this phrase did not equate to absence of risk or rule out the possibility of excess cases of disease due to irradiation, nor to the possibility of detection of a biomarker for certain types of cancer in certain subgroups being identified in the future that could be associated with radiation exposure; moreover, it was not intended to disregard the suffering associated with any such cases should they occur.”
Quote: “None of the 10 publications appraised challenge the assumptions or findings of the 2013 Fukushima report; instead they served to strengthen or complement those findings.”
All reports give some estimates about cancer-related deaths, and from the Linear No Threshold Model we know that they are based on estimates of radiation dose levels, i.e. how much ionizing radiation people are exposed to. Since understanding radiation doses is crucial for understanding how the death estimates come about, we decided to give some additional background information about radiation dose levels here to put the studies mentioned above in a larger context.
4. Background information about radiation exposure and radiation dose estimates
Estimating dose levels is very important since their effect on our health effects determined which protective measures we need to avoid harm. There are two types of health effects based on dose levels: deterministic and stochastic.
Deterministic effects depend on the dose level: there is a certain threshold of radiation below which they don’t occur. That means they happen after exposure to moderate or high doses of radiation. If radiation was rain, this is similar to getting sopping wet in a downpour. One example is acute radiation syndrome, which happens when people are exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation in a short period of time.
Stochastic effects are more tricky: they are based on probability calculations. In practical terms the idea behind it is this: When scientists observe the mutation of a single cell due to radiation, this might result in a higher risk of disease a long time after the exposure.
At low doses radiation risks are primary stochastic, especially cancer. There are different mathematical models that relate low radiation doses to the probability of cancer risks – depending on the model, the outcome might change. This is why there is not a single figure corresponding to the radiation induced cancer rates.
In 2013 WHO published a report with the preliminary doses estimates and predicted potential increases in the incidence rate of various cancers. The dose estimates were reported for the most affected regions in Fukushima Prefecture and for the first year, effective doses of radiation were estimated as 12 to 25 mSv.
We are going to try to break down those numbers a bit and make it clearer what they really mean.
#WHO, Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2013.
Quote: ”The estimated dose levels in Fukushima prefecture were also too low to affect fetal development or outcome of pregnancy and no increases, as a result of antenatal radiation exposure, in spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, perinatal mortality, congenital defects or cognitive impairment are anticipated.”
Quote: “In the two most affected locations of Fukushima prefecture, the preliminary estimated radiation effective doses for the first year ranged from 12 to 25 mSv.”
To put the numbers in context: as humans, we are always exposed to a little bit of radiation, called background radiation. We get it from natural sources like cosmic radiation from the Sun and other celestial objects or terrestrial radiation from the Earth’s crust. On average, about 80% of the annual dose of background radiation is from natural sources.
Here are a couple of sources giving background on background radiation (pun intended.)
#Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Natural Background Radiation, 2020.
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-background-radiation.cfm
Quote: “The annual average effective dose from natural background radiation is approximately 1.8 millisieverts (mSv) in Canada and 2.4 mSv worldwide.”
#World Nuclear Association, What is Background Radiation?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/Features/Radiation/4_Background_Radiation%281%29.pdf
Quote: “Naturally-occurring background radiation is the main source of exposure
for most people. Levels typically range from about 1.5 to 3.5 millisievert
per year but can be more than 50 mSv/yr.”
#WHO, Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures, 2016.
Quote: ”On average, 80% of the annual dose of background radiation that a person receives is due to naturally occurring terrestrial and cosmic radiation sources. Background radiation levels vary geographically due to geological differences. Exposure in certain areas can be more than 200 times higher than the global average.”
Ionizing radiation can also be caused by commercial, industrial or medical activities. For example, one of the highest levels of exposure is due to medical applications like X-Ray and CT scans. In order to ensure the safety of the medical stuff, the International Commision on Radiological Protection (ICRP) provides upper limits of exposure. Exposure levels change based on the exposed tissue, so the allowed upper limits are different for different tissues.
#Lopez P. O. et. al, ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures, 2018.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146645317750356
Quote: “The following limits apply:
Whole body: an effective dose of 20 mSv year−1, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, provided that the effective dose does not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Extremities: hands and feet, an equivalent dose of 500 mSv year−1.
Skin: an equivalent dose of 500 mSv year−1, averaged over 1-cm2 area of skin regardless of the area exposed.
Lens of the eye: an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv year−1, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, provided that the equivalent dose to the lens of the eye does not exceed 50 mSv in any single year.”
– In terms of other long-term consequences an increase in thyroid cancer in children has been observed, but according to the WHO this is related to the increased screening rates.
The WHO predicted that thyroid cancer has the highest increase compared to other cancers: around 70% over baseline rate of thyroid cancer, this means above the number of cancers that would have occurred anyways. Also, people who were exposed as children are reported to be at higher risk compared to those who were as adults.
#WHO, Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2013.
Quote: “For leukaemia, the lifetime risks are predicted to increase by up to around 7% over baseline cancer rates in males exposed as infants; for breast cancer, the estimated lifetime risks increase by up to around 6% over baseline rates in females exposed as infants; for all solid cancers, the estimated lifetime risks increase by up to around 4% over baseline rates in females exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer, the estimated lifetime risk increases by up to around 70% over baseline rates in females exposed as infants.”
But, the WHO report also states that these estimates are likely to be on the higher end, since they wanted to avoid underestimation. Also since baseline rates of thyroid cancer are relatively low, the 70% additional risk estimated by the WHO translates into a small absolute effect.
Even though it acknowledges the increased incidence rate of cancer, the WHO also warns that the increase could as well be due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure. An extensive thyroid screening programme has been implemented in Fukushima prefecture on around 360,000 residents. This way, asymptomatic cases were detected as well – this means cases that don’t show symptoms which affect the life expectancy or life quality of patients. Thyroid nodules and cysts can arise at an early age. However, in most cases, they do not grow bigger and turn into clinical cancer.
#WHO, Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident, 2016
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident
Quote: “Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases. [...] Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening.“
The UNSCEAR report from 2015 also arrived at a similar conclusion:
#UNSCEAR, Developments Since The 2013 Unscear Report On The Levels And Effects Of Radiation Exposure Due To The Nuclear Accident Following The Great East-japan Earthquake And Tsunami, 2015.
https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2015/UNSCEAR_WP_2015.pdf
Quote: “The Committee has concluded that its findings in this area of the 2013 Fukushima report remain valid and are largely unaffected by new information that has been published so far. Rather, the new information has given added weight to its statement that the high detection rate of nodules, cysts and cancer in thyroid surveys was a consequence of the intensive screening and highly sensitive nature of the equipment being used, and not of additional radiation exposure resulting from the accident.”
This more recent review explains the effects of the screening programme and the status of the children in Fukushima in more detail.
#Yamashita S., et. al, Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident, 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/
The reports above used risk models to estimate a potential increase in the incidence rate of various cancers. In addition to those, there have also been observational studies which reported the actual numbers of cancer cases in specific groups of people.
In the following study, for instance, 324,301 people, who were younger than 18 years old at the time of the accident, were screened for thyroid cancer in Japan. 187 were reported to have thyroid cancer. Based on the cohort in the study the incidence rates are:
29 cases per 100 000 person-years for those aged 15 to 17 years,
48 cases per 100 000 person-years for those aged 18 to 20 years,
64 cases per 100 000 person-years for those aged 21 to 22 years.
#Ohtsuru A. et. al, Incidence of Thyroid Cancer Among Children and Young Adults in Fukushima, Japan, Screened With 2 Rounds of Ultrasonography Within 5 Years of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident 2018.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30489622/
Quote: “Among 299 905 individuals screened in the first round (50.5% male; mean [SD] age at screening, 14.9 [2.6] years), malignant or suspected thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 116. Among 271 083 individuals screened in the second round (50.4% male; age at screening, 12.6 [3.2] years), malignant or suspected thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 71.”
The following study is another observational one. They report that they have not detected any thyroid cancer cases among the group of people they studied, in the 20-30 months period following the accident.
#Watanobe H. et. al, The Thyroid Status of Children and Adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture Examined during 20–30 Months after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study, 2014.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113804&type=printable
Quote: “We analyzed a possible relationship among thyroid ultrasonographic findings (1,137 subjects), serum hormonal data (731 subjects), urinary iodine concentrations (770 subjects), and iodine-131 ground deposition (1,137 subjects). We did not find any significant relationship among these indicators, and no participant was diagnosed to contract thyroid cancer. [...] At the timepoint of 20–30 months after the accident, we did not confirm any discernible deleterious effects of the emitted radioactivity on the thyroid of young Fukushima residents.”
– By 2018 there had been only one confirmed death among workers as a result of radiation-induced lung cancer.
#Japan confirms first Fukushima worker death from radiation, 2018.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575
Quote: “Japan has announced for the first time that a worker at the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant died after suffering radiation exposure. The man, who was in his 50s, died from lung cancer that was diagnosed in 2016. Japan's government had previously agreed that radiation caused illness in four workers but this is the first acknowledged death.”
– Solar, wind and geothermal energy basically only cause deaths as a result of construction and maintenance accidents.
The following study represents a dataset of accidents in low-carbon energy sources:
#Sovacool B.K. et al., Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems, 2016.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615009877
Quote: "Although dam planners employ various construction methods, “highly compressible areas and pockets of high pore pressure” can be difficult to detect before construction begins, and can complicate design features as building commences."
Quote: "The causes of wind energy accidents are perhaps more varied than nuclear facilities and hydroelectric dams. One interdisciplinary research team assessed an estimated 200,000 turbines around the world, and concluded that the two most significant causes were blade failure and fire."
Quote: "About 90 percent of fatalities in the sample (biofuels) occurred at a storage facility, and about 20 percent of accidents in our database were caused by mechanical failure. Indeed, one other study estimated that 90 % the accidents in the biodiesel industry related to mechanical failure were caused by the rupture of tanks and storage facilities."
– Unfortunately their current share of global energy is pretty low.
#OWID, 2020.
– The major player in renewable energy is hydropower – which mostly means building dams and letting water flow through turbines from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.
The following article gives an overview of global Hydropower energy production:
# International Energy Agency, Hydropower, 2020.
https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/hydropower
Quote: “Hydropower is expected to remain the world’s largest source of renewable electricity generation and play a critical role in decarbonising the power system and improving system flexibility.”
– In total, hydro has been the most fatal in terms of accidents, with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the last half century.
#Sovacool B.K. et al., Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems, 2016.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615009877
Quote: “Hydroelectric dams are the riskiest energy system in terms of human fatalities. Across the entire sample, they represented a relatively small number of accidents (only 26, or 3.8 percent) but accounted for more than 97 percent of all deaths and more than 0.2 deaths per TWh when normalized to energy output from 1990 to 2013.”
Unfortunately, it is not possible to find a complete account of the all hydropower dam accidents globally. There are reports collecting subsets of accidents though based on different criteria such as number of fatalities, economic damage etc. Following are two reports providing two such datasets.
This report describes a subset of the most destructive dam accidents. The dataset does not exclusively consist of hydropower plants though. There is information for 50 dam accidents and flood events worldwide, though the dataset is dominated by the events in the USA:
#U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Failure and Flood Event Case History Compilation, 2015
https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/documents/RCEM-CaseHistories2015.pdf
Another study reports a dataset of 23 Hydropower accidents specifically related to energy generation. They include only severe accidents with more than 5 deaths:
#Burgherr P. and Hirschberg S., Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142151400072X
– One accident clearly stands out: The 1975 Banqiao hydroelectric dam failure in China, which has striking similarities to Chernobyl: Old technology, poor design and poor management by authoritarian governments concerned about appearances. In a nutshell, a massive typhoon triggered intense flooding that destroyed the dam and subsequently a number of smaller dams in a chain reaction unleashing a flood of over 15 billion cubic meters of water in total. Kilometer wide waves as high as buildings devastated thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities. All in all, the death toll from just this one accident and its direct consequences is estimated to lie between 85,000 to 240,000.
There are various estimates on the overall death toll of the accident and it is not possible to find one solid figure. Since the evacuation process was not fully successful, many people suffered from famine and epidemic after the accident. Because of this, it was not possible to specify the number solely attributed to the accident itself.
#Sovacool B.K. et al., Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems, 2016.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615009877
Quote: “The Shimantan hydroelectric facility failed catastrophically on August 8, 1975, causing more than $9 billion in property damage and 171,000 deaths. Shimantan was a Soviet-style hydroelectric facility constructed in the early 1950s on the Ru River. Typhoon Nina dumped almost 8 inches of rain into the Basin in 24 hours, exceeding the yearly precipitation rate, collapsing buildings and destroying thousands of villages. The dam failed to handle more than twice its capacity and released 1,670 million tons of water in just five hours, creating a massive tidal wave that cascaded into the failure of other dams and destroyed 4,600 square miles of property.”
#Typhoon Nina–Banqiao dam failure, 2009.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Typhoon-Nina-Banqiao-dam-failure
Quote: “At a height of 387 feet (118 metres) and with a storage capacity of some 17.4 billion cubic feet (492 million cubic metres), it was designed to withstand a “1,000-year” flood (i.e., a flood level expected once every millennium). However, Typhoon Nina produced floods that were twice the 1,000-year levels as it stalled over Henan in early August. The first day’s total precipitation exceeded 40 inches (1,000 mm), surpassing the area’s total annual precipitation by some one-fifth, and three more days of heavy downpours followed. [...] The absence of an early-warning system or an evacuation plan exacerbated the disaster, and 26,000 people died in the floods, according to the official death toll. In addition, an estimated 145,000 people died from epidemics (caused by contamination of the water) and from famine; some estimates put the total death toll at more than 220,000. The number of people affected by the disaster exceeded 10 million.”
#Reflections on Banqiao, 2019.
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/reflections-on-banqiao/
Quote: “An estimated 230,000 people drowned. For those who survived the initial disaster, the relief effort was slow to arrive and came too little and too late. Over 10m people were displaced, many of them dying of famine and disease.”
#The Three Gorges Dam In China, 1995
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/China1.htm
Quote: “In July 1994, China's Minister of Defense, Chi Haotian, noted that the devastating earthquake which struck the northern Chinese city of Tangshan in July 1976, resulting in the deaths of 240,000 people and the serious wounding of 160,000 others, was "one of the world's ten major disasters in the present century." In the case of the Banqiao-Shimantan dam disaster of August 1975 which (according to the eight nppcc experts’ report) claimed almost as many lives as those lost in the earthquake of less than a year later but, unlike that event, was largely a man-made catastrophe the Chinese government has yet publicly and fully to acknowledge to the outside world that the incident even took place. [...] In an accident which occurred there in August 1975, the sudden and violent escape of this water resulted in the deaths of approximately 230,000 people.”
#The Catastrophic Dam Failures in China in August 1975
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/aug1975.htm
Quote: “Altogether 62 dams broke. Downstream the dikes and flood diversion projects could not resist such a deluge. They broke as well and the flood spread over more than a million hectares (2.5 million acres) of farm land throughout 29 counties and municipalities. One can imagine the terrible predicament of the city of Huaibin where the waters from the Hong and Ru Rivers came together. Eleven million people throughout the region were severely affected. Over 85 thousand died as a result of the dam failures. There was little or no time for warnings. The wall of water was traveling at about 50 kilometers per hour or about 14 meters per second. The authorities were hampered by the fact that telephone communication was knocked out almost immediately and that they did not expect any of the "iron dams" to fail.”
#Wivenhoe: A Dam Designed to Fail and Decimate Brisbane, 2011.
http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0003/8463/Shaw_Ken.pdf
Quote: “The runoff of Banqiao Dam was 13,000 m³ per second inflow vs. 78,800 m³ per second outflow, and 701 million tons of water was released in 6 hours, while 1.6 billion tons of water was released in 5.5 hours at upriver Shimantan Dam, and 15.7 billion tons of water was released in total.”
– When we burn fossil fuels to heat up water and make turbines spin or to cause mini explosions to move cars with internal-combustion engines, gases like ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide are released into the atmosphere.
#Ambient air pollution: Health impacts, WHO
https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/
Quote: “Pollutants with the strongest evidence for public health concern, include particulate matter (PM), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).”
– Breathing in these gases disrupts lung function, which aggravates chronic conditions like asthma and bronchitis, and causes a wide range of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
#WHO, 2018.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
Quote: “Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health. By reducing air pollution levels, countries can reduce the burden of disease from stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma.”
– But even more dangerous is the fine particle pollution burning fossil fuels causes – a mixture of solid and liquid droplets of poisonous substances, as small as 2.5 microns in diameter.
#WHO, 2018.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
Quote: ”Ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide per year in 2016; this mortality is due to exposure to small particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), which cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and cancers.”
– They easily find their way deep into your lungs and increase the risk of deadly diseases like lung cancer, stroke and heart disease.
#WHO, 2018.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
Quote: ”WHO estimates that in 2016, some 58% of outdoor air pollution-related premature deaths were due to ischaemic heart disease and strokes, while 18% of deaths were due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute lower respiratory infections respectively, and 6% of deaths were due to lung cancer.”
– Fossil fuel related air pollution is the number one cause of environmental related deaths in the world.
#WHO, Preventing disease through healthy environments, 2016.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/204585/9789241565196_eng.pdf?sequence=1
Quote: “Nearly two thirds of all deaths attributable to the environment are now composed of NCDs (Noncommunicable diseases): Improvement of the environment would have the greatest effect on reducing NCDs. Some 8.2 million out of 12.6 million deaths caused by the environment are NCDs, and this number could be reduced through modifiable risks in the environment. Much of the burden is linked to fossil fuel combustion, and production and consumption patterns. There has been a shift from infectious to NCDs during the last decade, and stroke and ischaemic heart disease are now the diseases with the largest contribution to the environmental burden, while it used to be respiratory infections and diarrhoea, which are now relegated to third and fourth position.”
– According to the WHO, it accounts for 29% of all cases of lung cancer, 17% of deaths from acute lower respiratory infection, 24% from stroke, 25% from ischaemic heart disease and 43% from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
#Ambient air pollution: Health impacts, WHO
https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/
Quote: “ Worldwide ambient air pollution accounts for:
29% of all deaths and disease from lung cancer
17% of all deaths and disease from acute lower respiratory infection
24% of all deaths from stroke
25% of all deaths and disease from ischaemic heart disease
43% of all deaths and disease from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ”
– All in all outside air pollution adds up to the deaths of 4 million people each year.
#Ambient air pollution: Health impacts, WHO
https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/
Quote: “An estimated 4.2 million premature deaths globally are linked to ambient air pollution, mainly from heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and acute respiratory infections in children.”
– Collectively, air pollution from fossil fuels is estimated to have killed around 100 million people in the past 50 years.
Total number of deaths due to fossil fuel related air pollution was estimated by multiplying the death rates from coal, oil and gas (deaths per TWh) by the global consumption (TWh) of each of these fossil fuel sources.
As a result, the total number of deaths are estimated as:
Coal: 38,543,349
Gas: 3,211,731
Oil: 39,362,977
which sums up to 81,118,058 fossil fuel related deaths in total. However, this is likely to be an estimate on the lower end since the death rates are based on more modern European fossil fuel plants. However, earlier plants and the plants that are still used in lower-income countries are likely to have less strict emissions regulations, which would yield higher levels of air pollution and in turn higher death rates. To compensate for this, we estimated around 100 million deaths.
(through personal communication with Hannah Ritchie, OWID)
The death rates (Coal:25, Oil:18.4, Gas:2.8) are taken from these reports
#Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. , Electricity generation and health, 2007.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext
via
#OWID, What are the safest sources of energy?, 2020.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Global coal, oil and gas consumption data is taken from:
#BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019.
There are even higher estimates on the number of deaths due to air pollution.
The data from another source yields a sum of ~133 million deaths for the period 1990-2017 due to indoor and outdoor air pollution combined.
#OWID, Number of deaths from air pollution.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/air-pollution-deaths-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
(OWID graph was sourced from:
#Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Results. Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), 2018.
– Fossil fuels also provide over 80% of global energy, so it makes sense that they cause the most deaths.
#OWID, Energy Mix, 2020.
– A few studies have compared the death rates from different energy sources per 1 TWh. That’s about the annual energy consumption of 27,000 EU citizens. Or 12,600 US citizens. To produce that much energy for one year, coal causes 25 deaths, oil causes 18 and natural gas 3. Renewable energy causes one death every few decades. And nuclear? In the worst case, nuclear energy would cause one death every 14 years.
Our World in Data has a full article where the safety of different energy sources are compared based on the findings of multiple studies:
#OWID, What are the safest sources of energy?, 2020.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Quote: “Let’s consider how many deaths each energy source would cause for an average town of 27,000 people in Europe, which – as I’ve said before – consume one terawatt-hour per year. Let’s call this town ‘Euroville’.
If Euroville was completely powered by coal we’d expect 25 people to die prematurely every year as a result. Most of these people would die from air pollution). This is how a coal-powered Euroville would compare with towns powered by other energy sources:
Coal: 25 people would die prematurely every year;
Oil: 18 people would die prematurely every year;
Gas: 3 people would die prematurely every year;
Nuclear: In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die. As we will explore later, this might even be an overestimate.
Wind: In an average year nobody would die – it will take 29 years before someone died;
Hydropower: In an average year nobody would die – it will take 42 years before someone died;
Solar: In an average year nobody would die – only every 53 years before someone would died.”
To calculate the number of deaths in 50 years, we stick to the same example above and death rates from the chart are used.
Coal: 24.6 x 50 = 1230
Oil: 18.4 x 50 = 920
Gas: 2.8 x 50 = 140
Hydropower: 0.02 x 50 = 1
Wind: 0.04 x 50 = 2
Solar: 0.02 x 50 = 1
Nuclear: 0.07 x 50 = 3.5
– One study even found that nuclear energy actually saved two million lives between 1971 and 2009 by displacing fossil fuels from the global energy mix.
#Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power, 2013.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html
Quote: “Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.”
– However, all these facts still leave one major argument that is fielded against nuclear power. Opponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear waste and its lack of long-term storage solutions is an unacceptable problem and risk, while proponents of nuclear energy say that until renewable energies are able to cover the complete energy demands of mankind, it is arguably safer to store nuclear waste for the time being than to inhale poisonous gases and promote rapid climate change. But a detailed discussion about nuclear waste would go too far here – more about it in our sources. Let us know if you would like a whole video about it!
A survey from 2005 showed that 79% of Europeans think radioactive waste is very dangerous.
And just as many people thought that there is no safe way of getting rid of radioactive waste:
#Radioactive waste, 2005
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_227_en.pdf
As the authors of the survey emphasize the public opinion on nuclear energy contradicts the scientific consensus:
#Radioactive waste, 2005
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_227_en.pdf
Quote: “First of all, eight out of ten respondents wrongly believe that all radioactive waste is very dangerous (79%). Next, 74% of respondents consider the disposal of low-level radioactive waste to be very risky and 71% perceive the same high level of risk for the transport of this type of waste.“
#Radioactive Waste Management, 2020
Quote: “Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that geological disposal is the best option.”
Like all energy-producing technologies, nuclear energy results in some waste products. There are three different types of nuclear waste, classified by their radioactivity: Low level waste, intermediate-level waste and highly contaminated waste.
Around 90% of the total waste volume is composed of tools and work clothing that is only lightly contaminated and contains only 1% of the total radioactivity. It loses most or all of its radioactivity within 300 years and is mostly stored on the power plants, where it doesn’t require special shielding such as concrete walls or protective clothing for the nuclear workers.
Roughly 7% is intermediate-level waste, such as used filters and steel components from the reactors. This kind of waste has been exposed to alpha radiation or contains long-lived radionuclides in concentrations that require isolation beyond several hundred years. This kind of waste needs to be solidified in concrete or bitumen and is mostly buried in shallow repositories on the site.
So we can handle 97% of the nuclear waste quite well, but the real trouble starts with the remaining 3%. These 3% consists of the highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of the nuclear reactions that occur inside the reactors.
They come in two forms: Used reactor fuel and waste materials that remain after spent fuel is reprocessed. In total there have been 370,000 tonnes of used fuel worldwide by 2013, of which one third has been processed. Each year 12,000 new tonnes are added to this stack:
#Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities, 2016
Quote: “HLW is currently increasing by about 12,000 tonnes worldwide every year, which is the equivalent of a two-storey structure built on a basketball court or about 100 double-decker buses and is modest compared with other industrial wastes.“
#Radioactive Waste - Myths and Realities, 2020
Quote: “To the end of 2013, a total of about 370,000 tonnes of used fuel had been discharged from reactors worldwide, with about one-third of this (120,000 t) having been reprocessed.”
#The World Nuclear Waste Report 2019, 2019
https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2019-11/World_Nuclear_Waste_Report_2019_Focus_Europe_0.pdf
Quote: “As of 2013 approximately 370,000 tons have been generated worldwide since the first reactor was connected to the grid, of which roughly one third (124,000 tons) has been reprocessed”
Ok, but still: What are we doing with all the radioactive waste?
Right after the nuclear material can’t be used anymore for fission, the waste products can be stored in a pool or in dry casks. In so-called spent fuel pools the material is put 12 meter deep underwater, where the short-lived isotopes are able to decay, reducing the ionising radiation. The water isolates the radioactive material and cools it down at the same time. But since the materials in the pools have been observed to degrade severely over time, the waste needs to be moved after 10 to 20 years.
Next the nuclear waste can be put into huge casks made of concrete and steel. Some argue that it can be stored in those casks for up to 100 years, but the casks could start cracking within 30 years or less.
After the nuclear waste has been cooled down, some of it can be reprocessed. In a series of chemical operations, plutonium and uranium can be separated from the nuclear waste and reused, but that is so expensive that it is only economically valuable when the uranium supply is low and prices are high.
All of these temporary solutions don’t solve the problem of long-term storage. Depending on which radioactive elements are used the half-life of this waste is between 24,000 years and 2 million years. In order to keep all the waste safe for such a long time, there have been several technologies suggested.
One is to put it on the ocean floor, where it is unlikely to be disturbed. Even if the casks were leaking the radioactive material could only diffuse through the dense clay on the ocean floor it is buried underneath, which could potentially take millions of years.
But there are some problems with this idea. One is that it is very difficult to find the waste again if it is necessary for some reason. The other is that it is very unlikely to find an international structure and regulation for deep sea disposal.
At the moment, the safest method we have is the so-called deep geological repository.
Hundreds of meters below the surface, the radioactive waste is put into huge drums of steel and concrete and is isolated by a combination of engineered and natural barriers like rock, salt and clay.
Still, there are many hazards regarding long-term storage. One of the biggest concerns is that the waste might affect the surrounding ecosystems. If not stored well, leaking radioactive waste can cause genetic problems for many generations of animals and plants. But several studies have shown that, if stored properly, no nuclear waste is able to leak into the environment.
#Deep Geological Repositories: A Safe And Secure Solution To Disposal Of Nuclear Wastes, 2000
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ISRM-IS-2000-015
Quote: “There is a common solution to the challenges of ensuring long term safety for spent fuel and of preventing weapon grade materials being illegally diverted and misused. Deep geologic repositories are the answer. The paper describes the specific engineering, geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical challenges involved at each phase in the development of a geologic repository.”
#Deep geological repositories, 2020
https://www.ensi.ch/en/waste-disposal/deep-geological-repository/
Quote: “The concept of final storage in deep geological formations has become established as a means of safe radwaste management in order to ensure lasting protection against radioactive waste for people and for the environment. This method allows the radioactive waste to be kept away from human living environments in the long term – i.e. for many millennia. “
So, while we can be very confident that deep geological repositories will remain safe for millions of years, there will remain a very tiny portion of uncertainty, since we don’t have nuclear waste that is stored for millions of years to examine it.
Another problem that might occur: If there would be a new ice age in the future, the thick rock shield that covers the nuclear waste might not withstand the pressure of thick ice resting on top of the rock and could affect the groundwater flow. Countries, in which new glacial periods are likely to happen, like Sweden, Finland and Canada take this in consideration:
#Geological problems in radioactive Waste Isolation, 1996
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/076/28076961.pdf
Quote: “Glacial cycles associated with ice sheet expansion and permafrost conditions beyond are believed to have had a major impact on the groundwater flow patterns and hence subrosion rates. In order to approximate this impact, a time-dependent, thermo-mechanically coupled flow line model has been developed in the EC-funded project and applied to a supra-regional transect fromSouth Sweden to northern France, so as to match the inferred Weichselian and Saalian glaciations (Boulton &Van Gijssel, 1996). ”
So while we’re in theory able to store high-level nuclear waste safely, the question remains, what would happen if radioactive material would leak from such a repository? So far only one high-level nuclear waste disposal has been in operation.
https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2019-11/World_Nuclear_Waste_Report_2019_Focus_Europe_0.pdf
Quote: “"So far, and with exception of WIPP, no repository for high-level waste is in operation an-ywhere. All projects for final disposal or deep geological disposal of nuclear waste worldwide are mostly at an early planning stage."
In 2014 a leak was detected in a repository in New Mexico. 13 workers tested positive for radiation and even though every radiation level above zero is worth investigating, the radiation exposure was ten times less radiation than that delivered during a typical chest X-ray.
#Radiation levels fall after nuclear waste leak in New Mexico, 2014
https://www.nature.com/news/radiation-levels-fall-after-nuclear-waste-leak-in-new-mexico-1.14778
Quote: “The agency estimated that a person at one of its above-ground monitoring stations would have sustained a cumulative radiation exposure of 1 millirem – ten times less radiation than that delivered during a typical chest X-ray.”
While this sounds indeed worrying, the negative effects for human health is a) limited to workers at the site and b) still not as dangerous as byproducts of burning fossil fuels.
The WHO has estimated that about 4.2 million people die each year from air pollution.
#Ambient (outdoor) air pollution, Key facts, 2018
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
Quote: “Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2016.“
Some even argue that the amount of ash generated by coal power plants emits 100 times more radiation than nuclear power plants.
#Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste, 2007
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Quote: “In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. *”
But this is highly debated among scientists and not entirely safe to say.
But what we can say, taking all this into consideration is that air pollution from burning fossil fuels is of far greater threat for public health than deep geological repositories for nuclear waste, if a safe storage over a long is presupposed/assumed.
– So looking at the comparative death rates, it’s a bit concerning that some countries are replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels, mostly coal. Especially Germany and Japan have been the most active in dismantling their nuclear fleet.
#Thomas Feldhoff, Post-Fukushima energy paths: Japan and Germany compared, 2016.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340214555108#_i7
Quote: “However, Japan replaced the other half of its lost capacity by burning more gas, oil, and coal in conventional thermal power plants. Japan now ranks as the world’s largest importer of liquefied natural gas and second-largest importer of coal, behind China (US Energy Information Administration, 2013). [...] Capitalizing on a broad antinuclear sentiment and policy instruments already in place, the German renewable energy sector has continued to expand quickly since 2011. The electric utility industry has also coped with the loss of nuclear generating capacity by ramping up production from its profitable coal-fired power plants, many of which burn lignite—the dirtiest type of coal.”
Also, CarbonBrief provides an interactive map showing status quo of nuclear power plants worldwide – operating, offline, shutdown or under construction– as of 2016.
#CarbonBrief, Mapped: The world’s nuclear power plants, 2016.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-power-plants
#Europe Beyond Coal, Overview: National coal phase-out announcements in Europe, 2020.
– In a ploy to appease the public, the German government shut down 11 of its 17 nuclear facilities and plans to close the remaining reactors in 2022.
#Federal Office for the Safety of the Nuclear Waste Management
https://www.base.bund.de/EN/ns/ni-germany/npp/npp_node.html
Quote: “In Germany there are six operating nuclear power plants thereof 5 are pressurized water reactors (PWR) and 1 is a boiling water reactor (BWR).”
This article gives a quick overview on how the events leading to the nuclear phase-out unfolded:
#Germany's nuclear phaseout explained, 2017
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-nuclear-phaseout-explained/a-39171204
Quote: ”A few days after an earthquake and tsunami, over 40,000 protesters in Germany formed a 45-kilometer (28-mile) human chain from the city of Stuttgart to a nearby nuclear plant to demonstrate against the government's plans to extend the life of Germany's nuclear power plants. A few months later, Merkel did a complete about-face on nuclear energy. On June 30, 2011, Berlin ordered the immediate shutdown of eight of the country's 17 reactors. The decision also outlined a timeline for taking the rest of the nuclear plants offline by 2022.”
This article by German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy explains the German energy transition program, the “Energiewende”.
#Our energy transition for an energy supply that is secure, clean, and affordable
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/energy-transition.html
The Federal Office for Safety of Nuclear Waste Management provides further information on the status of the nuclear facilities in Germany:
#Nuclear installations in Germany, 2020.
https://www.base.bund.de/EN/ns/ni-germany/ni-germany.html
#Nuclear facilities in Germany "in operation"
#Nuclear facilities in Germany "in decommissioning"
– The immediate gap in energy production was filled by temporarily increasing coal production – the energy source with the largest health impacts and the worst consequences for climate change. A 2019 analysis concluded that as a consequence, the nuclear phaseout has led to 1100 avoidable deaths per year in Germany, due to the increased air pollution in the years after 2010.
In 2012, the first year after the German government had decided to shut down its nuclear power plants, coal production increased by 25 TWh.
#OWID, 2020.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-primary-energy-source?time=2012&country=~DEU
A 2019 working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analyzes the economic and social impact of the nuclear phase-out in Germany. The authors estimated how much fewer coal would have been burned if Germany would have kept their nuclear power plants going. The result stated that due to the nuclear phase-out 31.7% more coal has been used.
The authors further estimate that this additional consumption of coal had cost Germany roughly $21 billion per year and around 1,100 lives due to air pollution.
#Jarvis S., Deschenes O. and Jha A., The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out, NBER Working paper, 2019.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598
Quote: “Our analysis indicates that the phase-out of nuclear power comes with an annual cost to Germany of roughly $12 billion per year. Over 70% of this cost is due to the 1,100 excess deaths per year resulting from the local air pollution emitted by the coal-fired power plants operating in place of the shutdown nuclear plants.”
“We find that the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phase-out was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. “
“This lost nuclear production was replaced by electricity production from coal- and gas-fired sources in Germany as well as electricity imports from surrounding countries. “
After a couple of years however coal production decreased again and is now lower than before Fukushima – so we can see in the following graph that it was a comparatively small bump in increased coal production that produced this effect.
#OWID, 2020.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-energy-share?tab=chart&time=2007..latest&country=~DEU
