Radiation

Radiation is energy that travels as particles or waves and can be naturally occurring or man-made. It is
all around us in various forms ranging from radio waves to x-rays to cosmic radiation.
We gain benefits from this energy and we classify these energies into two main types:
1. Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to excite atoms (making them move more rapidly).
Examples of non-ionizing sources include microwave ovens, radio transmissions, cell phones,
and visible light.
2. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to change atoms by remove electrons from them, a
process called ionization. Examples of ionizing sources are X-rays, nuclear power plants, and
smoke detectors.
There are three main kinds of ionizing radiation:
 alpha particles, which include two protons and two neutrons
 beta particles, which are essentially high-speed electrons
 gamma rays and x-rays, which are pure energy (photons)

Radiation Detection

You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch radiation. You can only detect radiation with special
equipment.

Detecting Non-Ionizing Radiation (NIR)

Since non-ionizing radiation is simply low-energy waves of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves
or microwaves), detection is hard. The easiest way is to look for any nearby antennas, satellite dishes, or
radio towers. Or, if you can listen to your radio, watch TV, have cell service or use wireless internet,
Bluetooth, wireless mouse or keyboard you are definitely being exposed to NIR.

To measure the quantity of radio/microwaves you will need an EMF (electromagnetic field) meter. A
very simple way to determine the wavelength of NIR is the length of the antenna. As a general rule, the
shorter the antenna, the more energized the waves. To pick up radio waves, an antenna must be the
length of the longest wavelength. You can compare the antenna length to the electromagnetic spectrum
chart to find the energy intensity.

Detecting Ionizing Radiation

Geiger Counter Ionizing radiation can be measured very precisely — much more precisely than other
potentially hazardous materials. One of the basic measuring instruments is the Geiger-Muller counter.
The instrument consists of a detector set at the end of a probe with counting electronics. This
instrument counts the number of radioactive particles entering a sensitive detection chamber, and
translates that signal into a needle movement on an analog dial or a value displayed on a screen.

The Geiger counter emits a click for every particle, so with only background radiation, the instrument
clicks every few seconds. In a high radiation environment, it clicks rapidly in proportion to the radiation
level. This way, the user gets a visible as well as audible measurement of radioactivity.

Some people receive exposure to radiation as part of their employment (radiologists and nuclear plant
workers). Worker radiation exposures are carefully monitored to ensure that everyone’s exposures are
kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Individual film badges and personal dosimeters are
useful for this purpose. In the film badges the amount of film darkening is a measure of the radiation
received, so by analyzing the film, radiation exposure records for each individual worker can be kept.
Personal dosimeters allow the workers to view their own radiation dose instantly by looking at a small
scale magnified by the instrument.
Protecting Against Exposure
Time, Distance and Shielding
There are three general guidelines for controlling exposure to ionizing radiation:
 minimizing exposure time,
 maximizing distance from the radiation source,
 shielding yourself from the radiation source.
Time is an important factor in limiting exposure to the public and to radiological emergency responders.
The amount of radiation exposure increases and decreases with the time people spend near the source
of radiation. The maximum time to be spent in the radiation environment is defined as the stay time.
The stay time can be calculated using the following equation:
Stay Time = Exposure Limit/Dose Rate
Distance can be used to reduce exposure. The farther away people are from a radiation source, the less
their exposure. Doubling the distance from a point source of radiation decreases the exposure rate to
1/4 the original exposure rate. Halving the distance, increases the exposure by a factor of four.
How close to a source of radiation can you be without getting a high exposure? It depends on the energy
of the radiation and the size (or activity) of the source. Distance is a prime concern when dealing with
gamma rays, because they can travel at the speed of light. Alpha particles can only travel a few inches
and beta particles around 10 feet.
Shielding: As ionizing radiation passes through matter, the intensity of the radiation is diminished.
Shielding is the placement of an “absorber” between you and the radiation source. An absorber is a
material that reduces radiation from the radiation source to you. Alpha, beta, or gamma radiation can all
be stopped by different thicknesses of absorbers.
Shielding material can include barrels, boards, vehicles, buildings, gravel, water, lead or whatever else is
immediately available.

α ALPHA – can be stopped after traveling through about 1.2 inches

of air, about 0.008 inches of water, or a piece of paper or skin. A thin piece of paper, or even the dead
cells in the outer layer of human skin provides adequate shielding because alpha particles can’t
penetrate it. However, living tissue inside the body offers no protection against inhaled or ingested
alpha emitters.

β BETA – can only be stopped after traveling through about 10

feet of air, less than 2 inches of water, or a thin layer of glass or metal. Additional covering, for example
heavy clothing, is necessary to protect against beta- emitters. Some beta particles can penetrate and
burn the skin.
γ GAMMA: To reduce typical gamma rays by a factor of a billion, thicknesses of

shield need to be about 13.8 feet of water, about 6.6 feet of

concrete, or about 1.3 feet of lead. Thick, dense shielding is necessary to protect against gamma rays.
The higher the energy of the gamma ray, the thicker the shield must be. X-rays pose a similar challenge.
This is why x-ray technicians often give patients receiving medical or dental X-rays a lead apron to cover
other parts of their body.
Biological Effects
We live in a radioactive environment. We are subject to background radiation all the time and the
normal levels are well known. Radiation is in the air we breath, the food we eat, and the places in which
we live and work.

There is evidence to suggest that unless radiation exposure reaches ten (10) times the normal
background level, there is no harm to humans from radiation. Furthermore, there appears to be
evidence that radiation at or near the normal background level may be beneficial to, and even necessary
for life.
For low levels of radiation exposure (under 10,000 mrem), the biological effects are so small they may
not be detected. The body’s natural repair mechanisms often repair any damage to the cells before any
effect is felt or detected. This protective effect of low levels of radiation is called radiation hormesis.
Too much radiation, like too much of anything, is harmful.
The effects of too much radiation (over 50,000 mrem) can range from mild gastrointestinal problems
(such as nausea and vomiting) to changes in the blood, to damage to the central nervous system.
High levels of radiation dose have caused cancers (leukemia, breast, ovarian, pancreatic etc) and led to
death.
DID YOU KNOW?
 Most people who died at Hiroshima did not die from the radiation; most died from the blast of
the bomb and subsequent fires.
 Studies have shown that cellular cultures (protozoa) could not grow normally when they were
deprived of background radiation (Luckey TD.)
 Between 1978 and 1987, 108,000 nuclear submarine workers were compared to 700,000 other
shipyard workers. There were 24% fewer cancers among those exposed to low-doses of
radiation.
 The Colorado Plateau, with higher background radiation levels, has 15% fewer cancers than the
national average.
Isotopes
Ions are atoms that are either missing or have extra electrons and so have a charge. Let’s say an atom is
missing a neutron or has an extra neutron, that type of atom is called an isotope.
Radioactive isotopes or radioisotopes are isotopes of an element having an unstable nucleus that decays
(emitting alpha, beta, or gamma rays) until stability is reached. The stable end product is a
nonradioactive isotope of another element. Uranium (U) is a metallic, silver-gray element that is a
member of the actinide series. The radioisotope Uranium-238 has 3 more neutrons than Uranium and
decays to Lead-206.
Since small traces of radioactive isotopes can be detected to a high degree of precision, they have
various uses in medical therapy, diagnostics, and research. Domestic sources of radioisotopes are
needed to adequately sustain the growing use of this technology to ensure our productivity, security
and competitiveness and to meet the growing needs of our medical and healthcare communities.
DID YOU KNOW?
 Promising research, in areas such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and rheumatoid arthritis, has
been delayed or abandoned because certain radioisotopes have been unavailable.
 Geologists, archaeologists and police rely on radioisotopes to determine the age and chemical
composition of materials.
 Biologists explore the use of radiation in food preservation and in agriculture to develop better
fertilizers, control insects and improve plant breeds.
Nuclear Fission
Nuclear fission is the splitting heavy nuclei (such as uranium-235 and plutonium-239) into gamma rays,
free neutrons, and other subatomic particles.
Have you ever played with marbles?
Imagine about 100 marbles lying on a flat surface and roughly forming a circle. What would happen if
you took another marble and threw it at them? They would fly all around in different directions and
groups. That is exactly what happens in nuclear fission. The filled circle is like an atom’s nucleus. The
marble being thrown is like a “neutron bullet”.
Fission as encountered in the modern world is usually a deliberate man-made nuclear reaction.

Nuclear Fission Nuclear Fusion

Definition: Fission is the splitting of a large atom Fusion is the fusing of two or more
into two or more smaller ones. lighter atoms into a larger one.
Natural occurrence of Oklo’s Natural Fission Reactors Fusion occurs in stars, such as the sun.
the process:
Byproducts of the Fission produces many highly Few radioactive particles are produced
reaction: radioactive particles. by fusion reaction, but if a fission
“trigger” is used, radioactive particles
will result from that.
Conditions: Critical mass of the substance and high- High density, high temperature
speed neutrons are required. environment is required.
Energy Requirement: Takes little energy to split two atoms in Extremely high energy is required to
a fission reaction. bring two or more protons close
enough that nuclear forces overcome
their electrostatic repulsion.
Energy Released: The energy released by fission is a The energy released by fusion is three
million times greater than that released to four times greater than the energy
in chemical reactions; but lower than released by fission.Fusion D+T releases
the energy released by nuclear 17.6MeV
fusion.Fission U235 + n is a total of 236 D=2 atomic mass units (amu) and T =3
amu then 180MeV/236 =0.763MeV per so total is 5, then 17.6MeV/5=3.52MeV
nucleon per nucleon
Nuclear Fusion
Fusion is the process by which the sun and other stars generate light and heat. It is a nuclear process,
where energy is produced by smashing together light atoms. It is the opposite reaction to fission, where
heavy isotopes are split apart.
It’s most easily achieved on Earth by combining two isotopes of hydrogen: deuterium and tritium.
Hydrogen is the lightest of all the elements, being made up of a single proton and a electron. Deuterium,
often called “heavy water”, has an extra neutron in its nucleus. Tritium has two extra neutrons, and is
therefore three times as heavy as hydrogen. In a fusion cycle, tritium and deuterium are combined and
result in the formation of helium, the next heaviest element in the Periodic Table, and the release of a
free neutron.
Deuterium, is found one part per 6,500 in ordinary seawater, and is therefore is globally available,
eliminating the problem of unequal geographical distribution of fuel resources. This means that there
will be fuel for fusion as long as there is water on the planet.
DID YOU KNOW?
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Greifswald, Germany, have demonstrated
that it is possible to superheat hydrogen atoms to form a plasma of 80 million degrees Celsius using a
machine called the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator. The plasma forms the basis for nuclear fusion, in which
hydrogen atoms collide and their nuclei fuse to form helium atoms – a process which lets off energy and
is similar to what happens in our sun.
What is Fusion Power?
Let us take look at a fusion reaction. You can see that as deuterium and tritium, the two heavy isotopes
of hydrogen, fuse together, their component parts are recombined into a helium atom and a fast
neutron. As the two heavy isotopes are reassembled into a Helium atom, you have ‘extra’ mass leftover
which is converted into the kinetic energy of the neutron, according to Einstein’s formula: E=mc2.

For a nuclear fusion reaction to occur, it is necessary to bring two nuclei so close that nuclear forces
become active and glue the nuclei together. Nuclear forces are small-distance forces and have to act
against the electrostatic forces where positively charged nuclei repel each other. This is the reason why
nuclear fusion reactions occur mostly in high density, high temperature environment.
At very high temperatures, electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei to form a plasma (ionized gas).
Under such conditions, the repulsive electrostatic forces that keep positively charged nuclei apart can be
overcome, and the nuclei of select light elements can be brought together to fuse and form other
elements. Nuclear fusion of light elements releases vast amounts of energy and is the fundamental
energy-producing process in stars.
The goal of fusion research is to confine fusion ions at high enough temperatures and pressures, and for
a long enough time to fuse.
Propulsion
More than 150 ships around the world use nuclear propulsion.
Traveling Aboard a Nuclear Powered Icebreaker

Icebreaker in action
The Arctic Ocean used to be one of the least known and least visited oceans in the world, but now more
adventure travelers are enjoying the sites and sounds of the North Pole in style and comfort thanks to
nuclear powered icebreakers.
In the late 50’s icebreakers ensured safe passage of cargo ships crossing the Arctic circle covered in
shifting ice packs. In the 70’s these vessels began assisting scientific expeditions. In the late 80’s the
nuclear powered icebreakers joined the tourism industry providing adventure vacations to areas most
tourists were unable to get to. Today, nuclear powered vessels make the North Pole an easier place to
visit. They carry scientists and tourists alike.
How They Work
These massive ships are designed to ride up on the frozen ocean waters using its sheer weight to smash
through the frozen layers of ice that exist year-round. Made with a strong steel hull and a special skin to
withstand the frigid water temperatures, these ships can charge through ice that’s as thick as seven feet
thick, keeping travelers safe, sound, and warm.
Nuclear power is preferred over diesel, because it allows these vessels to be out at sea for long periods
of time only having to refuel once every four years. The amount of room this technology takes up on
board is also a benefit because many ships must carry their own diesel fuel aboard, losing valuable cargo
space thus making voyages less cost efficient.
DID YOU KNOW?
Nuclear Ship Savannah, the world’s first nuclear-powered merchant ship.
 Built as a showpiece under President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program, the N.S.
Savannah demonstrated the peaceful use of nuclear propulsion.
 It demonstrated the technical use of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships and was not
expected to be economically feasible.
 It made several trips around the country and abroad and in 1971 the ship was retired and later
declared a National Historic Landmark.
 It sparked the interest of other countries to build similar ships for efficient and reliable water
travel.
 The ship is owned by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and managed by the Maritime
Administration. It is currently tied up at Pier 13 at the Canton Marine Terminal in Baltimore
harbor.
 The ship is open for tours during the week by calling (202) 680-2066. A large amount of
additional information about the Savannah, including a virtual tour of the ship is available on the
Maritime Administration’s website.
Nuclear propulsion is also used for:
Space Technology
Radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that are powering space missions may one day help
answer questions about Earth. The nuclear generators have been in use since 1961, when the U.S. Navy
first launched a transit navigation satellite. They convert heat from nuclear fuel into electricity.
Space missions have helped us learn about the planets, stars, and even the edges of our solar system.
Spectacular pictures and scientific data have painted a detailed pictured of not only what our galaxy
looks like but also what it’s made of.

Submarines
Modern submarines are powered by one of two primary propulsion methods – nuclear power (NP) or
diesel-electric (DE).

DE submarines today, unlike those of past wars, are primarily used by smaller navies for coastal defense,
rather than for long-range strategic purposes. This is because the advent of NP for most blue-water
navies using submarines leaves the DE submarine at a disadvantage in a tactical situation. Though DE’s
are extremely quiet on an electric motor, their speed limitations against another boat using NP means
they’re on the defensive as soon as they make enough noise to be detected. Battery power also limits
the scope of electronic and weapons systems they can carry, and their fuel limits their range and
capability and speed.
Nuclear Power has been the choice of large blue-water navies for submarines since the U.S.S Nautilus
circumnavigated the globe in the 1950’s without the need for refueling and in record time. Nautilus
could remain underwater for up to four months without resurfacing. Nuclear Power gives naval vessels a
huge advantage in the systems it can employ, crew comfort, and tactical employment. Nuclear
submarines can be in a target area gathering intelligence or inserting covert teams long before main
battle groups enter the area.

Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers

The U.S. Navy’s USS Long Beach (CGN-9) & USS Enterprise (CVN-65) were the first Navy surface
combatants to be powered by nuclear reactors. Both ship keels were laid within 2 months of each other,
and commissioned at almost the same time.

U.S.S. Enterprise
The Long Beach was the only ship of her class, and was the last cruiser built on a traditional cruiser hull.
Subsequent cruisers were built on modified, scaled up destroyer hulls. The Long Beach was also the
Navy’s first guided missile cruiser, which showed the reality that missiles had finally replaced traditional
guns for surface-surface engagements. She was decommissioned on July 2, 1994.
The U.S.S. Enterprise was in service for over 50 years – the oldest active commissioned warship in the
Navy. In December 2012, the Big E left active-duty Navy service in a formal deactivation ceremony at
Pier 12 in Norfolk, Virginia.
In addition to the Navy’s 10 currently steaming carriers, three more are now under construction:
 The U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford should set sail in 2016
 The U.S.S. John F. Kennedy is slated to set sail in 2020
 The U.S.S. Enterprise, CVN-80, is slated to sail in 2025

Medical Radioisotopes
Radioisotopes are made in nuclear reactors or in cyclotrons (particle accelerators). Generally, neutron-
rich isotopes and those resulting from nuclear fission need to be made in reactors, and neutron-
depleted ones are made in cyclotrons.
DID YOU KNOW?
Bone imaging is an extremely important use of radioactive properties. Suppose a runner is experiencing
severe pain in both shins. The doctor decides to check to see if either tibia has a stress fracture. The
runner is given an injection containing a radioisotope with a half-life of 6 hours.
After a several hour wait, the patient undergoes bone imaging. At this point, any area of the body that is
undergoing unusually high bone growth will show up as a stronger image on the screen. Therefore if the
runner has a stress fracture, it will show up on the bone imaging scan.
This technique is also good for arthritic patients, bone abnormalities and various other diagnostics.
Listed below are several radioisotopes and the applications they are used for.
Reactor Radioisotopes
Cyclotron Radioisotopes

Progress on major fusion facilities

While fusion sounds simple, the heating, compressing and confining hydrogen plasmas at 100 million
degrees is a significant challenge. It has taken a lot of science and engineering research to get fusion
developments to where they are today. Following the first fusion experiments in the 1930s, fusion
physics laboratories were established around the world. By the mid-1950s “fusion machines” were
operating in the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany and Japan.
A major breakthrough occurred in 1968 in the Soviet Union, where researchers approached fusion
conditions in a doughnut-shaped magnetic confinement device called a tokamak. From this time on, the
tokamak was to become the dominant concept in fusion research, and tokamak devices multiplied
across the globe (JET, TFTR, JT-60). Achievements in those machines led fusion science to an exciting
threshold: the long sought-after energy “breakeven” point. Breakeven describes the moment when
plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to produce them. Plasma
energy breakeven has never been achieved, but scientists expect that the next-step tokamak device—
ITER, currently under construction in France—will produce more power than it consumes, beginning to
write the chapter on 21st century fusion.
An alternative type of magnetic confinement device is the so-called stellarator, which has the shape of a
twisted doughnut. The world’s largest stellarator, called Wendelstein 7-X (or W7-X) is under
construction in Greifswald, Germany by the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics. It is expected to
start operating in 2015, after 20 years of planning and construction.
In parallel to magnetic fusion research, the international community is also exploring the feasibility of
inertial confinement fusion as a viable energy source, where energetic beams such as lasers, are used to
confine and heat the plasma to fusion conditions. This effort is being led by the experimental facility NIF,
currently under operation in California, USA. Although energy breakeven has not yet been achieved in
the NIF, scientific and technological progress since start of operations in 2010 has been substantial, and
ongoing experiments are expected to demonstrate a feasible path towards commercial fusion in the
near term.
DID YOU KNOW?
In September 2013, scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory achieved the first step towards harnessing the power of the sun here on earth – they got
more energy out of a fuel burn than was put into it. The achievement falls short of the NIF’s stated
definition of “ignition”, which requires that the fuel burn release more energy than all of the energy
used by the machine. To be clear, at this point they achieved a release of energy greater than that
which the laser beams put into the fuel capsule.

Multiple Uses
The primary goal of the fusion program worldwide is the production of a commercially viable fusion
power plant which would provide cheap, efficient, and clean power for the entire world. Fusion can
also:
 Be used to process waste and recycle its elements
 Produce fuel for fission reactors
 Process radioactive fuel waste and activated materials
 Power future spacecraft and probes for further stellar exploration
The Future
If scientists are successful in achieving a sustained fusion reactions, we will have an economical energy
source that will change the world. Fusion fuel comes from water, and hence widely available and easily
harvested at low cost. One out of every 6,500 atoms of hydrogen in ordinary water is deuterium,
giving a gallon of water the energy content of 300 gallons of gasoline.
Fusion also:
 produces no CO2 emissions
 produces little radioactive waste (the products helium and a neutron are not radioactive)
 has no risk of ‘meltdown’ like a conventional fission reactor
 is 3-4 times more powerful than fission
 has little-to-no proliferation risk (no need for fuel refinement)
 would last for thousands of years using the available fuel we have now

Fusion Reactor History

General Atomics
1960s – DIII & DIII–D: Tokamak Experiment
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1991- Alcator C
PPPL: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
1976 – PDX: Poloidal Divertor Experiment
1982-1997 TFTR: Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
TFTR was the first in the world to use 50/50 mixtures of deuterium-tritium, yielding an unprecedented
10.7 million watts of fusion power.
Japan
1985-2010 – JT–60U: Japanese Tokamak Experiment
In 2010 JT-60 was disassembled and is currently under construction to be upgraded to JT-60SA by using
niobium-titanium superconducting coils.
Europe
1983 – JET: Joint European Torus
The largest tokamak in the world, it is the only operational fusion experiment capable of producing
fusion energy.
The NIF and ITER Projects
2010 – NIF: National Ignition Facility
Under Construction – ITER
Reactors
There are two types of nuclear reactors operating in the United States: the pressurized water reactor
(PWR) and the boiling water reactor (BWR). Both types of reactors use fission to heat water and create
steam.
How do Nuclear Power Plants Work?
Electricity is produced by using the heat from fission to create mechanical energy, which turns an
electric generator. The nuclear energy released by fission is about 1,000,000 times greater than the
chemical energy released by combustion, so a small amount of uranium fuel produces an enormous
amount of heat, which is used to heat water and turn it into steam. The steam moves the blades of a
turbine that then turns the generator.
Types of Reactors
Heat for the BWR is produced in the same way as for a PWR: water within the reactor core is heated by
fission. In a BWR, the water is allowed to boil and the resulting steam proceeds directly to the turbine.
In a PWR, the heated water is sent through a radiator-like exchanger that uses the heat to turn a
separate supply of water into steam. The steam then proceeds to the turbine. In both types of reactors,
once the steam has passed through the turbine, it is condensed back to water. This water is then
pumped back to the reactor to be heated again, continuing the process.
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must certify the designs for proposed nuclear
power plants before a construction and operation license can be issued. Construction is under way on
two reactors in Georgia, two in South Carolina and one in Tennessee and another 67 new reactors are
being built in 14 countries. Some of these countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, are building their
first reactors. Others, such as China and India, already have made a significant commitment to nuclear
energy. Generation IV (or Gen IV) designs are nuclear reactor designs still in the conceptual phase and
represent the future of nuclear power.

Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)

When you pour hot cocoa into a mug, you may notice that the mug soon becomes warm, perhaps even
too hot to hold. This is because heat will always flow from a hot material into a cooler one. This
scientific law helps us understand how to move the heat energy from inside a reactor to a place where it
can be changed into electrical energy. Because of the heat produced by the fission reaction, water that
is circulated through the core becomes extremely hot. Generally, when water reaches 100 Celsius (212
Fahrenheit), it boils and turns into a gas called steam. Gases take up more space than liquids. But inside
a reactor, there is only a limited amount of space and the water cannot turn into steam. As a result, it
can be heated to 315 Celsius (600 Fahrenheit) while still remaining a liquid. We say that the water is
under pressure. Because the water in the core is under enough pressure to remain a liquid, the reactor
is called a pressurized water reactor or PWR for short.

Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)

In a typical U.S. BWR water inside a thick steel reactor vessel passes over a reactor core constructed of
long cylindrical fuel rods. Inside each fuel rod is a stack of ceramic fuel pellets that contain fissile
elements.
The energy of the fission reaction inside these rods is transferred to the water as heat, evaporating the
water and producing steam.
The amount of energy produced is controlled — and can be shut off entirely — by small changes in the
position of control rods inside the core that absorb the neutrons which fission the fuel.
The high temperature, high-pressure steam rapidly expands between turbine blades, causing the turbine
to turn and rotate an electric generator. This produces electricity.
The steam exits the turbine and then passes through a condenser, where it is cooled by cold water from
a cooling tower or another source, such as a lake. When cooled, the steam condenses to liquid water
and is returned to the reactor core to begin the process again.

DID YOU KNOW?

The first nuclear reactor on Earth was made by Mother Nature. In 1972, scientists found the remains of
a natural nuclear reactor in a uranium mine in Oklo, Gabon, Africa. They determined that about 1 1/2
billion years ago a nuclear chain reaction occurred in the mine. It generated heat off and on for 500,000
years.
The real importance of this find was that the radioactive wastes, left over from the “reactor”, were
found right where they were left more than a billion years ago.
The waste had not moved or contaminated the area outside the mine. This was without having any
man-made containers or the knowledge we have today to safely store and dispose of solidified nuclear
wastes.
The Next Generation of Reactors
As the need for clean energy grows globally, nuclear science and technology provides reliable, local
energy (homegrown) options that have near zero emissions.
 The International Energy Agency estimates world electricity demand will double by 2030. The
U.S. Dept. of Energy projects national demand will increase 45% in twenty years.
 Nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions or insufficient supplies
of natural resources.
 Maintaining or increasing nuclear energy’s share in the national energy mix will reduce volatility
in electricity prices and save hydrocarbons for other uses.
 Nuclear power is the nation’s largest expandable source of electricity that will help meet clean
air requirements by controlling emissions of greenhouse gases and harmful particulates.
In 2002 the Gen IV International Forum (GIF) nations (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Korea,
South Africa, Switzerland, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America) proposed a long
term research and development program to investigate 6 promising new reactor designs.
The six design concepts are:
 The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
 Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
 Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
 Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
 Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
These reactor concepts are designed to address the energy needs of the world into the far future (post
21st century).
 They efficiently utilize Uranium (many can employ depleted Uranium or “spent” fuel from
current reactors).
 Destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via transmutation.
 Generate Hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy needs.
 Be inherently safe and easy to operate.
 Provide inherent resistance to Nuclear Weapons proliferation.
 Provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation.
 Carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy generation.
These reactor concepts are currently at various levels of development. The first deployments of
Generation IV reactors are not expected before 2025. However, the long term potential of these
projects is enormous. For example, one Molten-Salt Reactor designed to consume one ton of Uranium
per year, could supply sufficient Hydrogen to supply 3 million passenger vehicles. The waste from the
plant’s year’s operation would occupy half the volume of a typical domestic refrigerator. The
radioactivity of the waste would diminish to background levels in about 500 years.
Transporting Nuclear Waste
Transporting nuclear waste requires a sturdy container that can shield from radioactivity. A specially
designed container called a cask is used. There are different cask types for different purposes, but they
all have similar overall design to maximize the containment of radioactivity.
A cask is a strong, heavily-shielded, double-walled container. The outer structure is of several inches of
high-strength steel. The inner structure is usually made of steel as well. Casks meant to transport used
nuclear fuel assemblies have a rack of square openings in this inner structure to provide support for
those assemblies. If the cask is being used for transporting used nuclear fuel assemblies, the rack may
also contain neutron-absorbing materials to safeguard against the unlikely event of a nuclear chain
reaction.
For transporting used nuclear fuel assemblies, the inner canister is dried and filled with an inert gas
(usually helium) to prevent long-term corrosion of the fuel assemblies. The casks also usually feature
several inches of lead or depleted uranium (which is not radioactive) between the inner and outer
structures to provide gamma ray shielding. The inner canister is then sealed, preventing any release of
radioactive material. Large honeycomb structures made of wood, foam, or aluminum are placed on the
ends of the casks to absorb the force the cask would experience in the event of a drop.
Materials such as used nuclear reactor fuel assemblies, radioactive resins (such as those used to filter
radioactive material from water), contaminated clothing or tools, and isotopes used in nuclear medicine
are some examples of nuclear waste that may be transported in a cask.
The cask systems are designed to handle a wide range of severe environmental conditions, including
earthquakes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and tornadoes. This includes objects that may impact the
cask at high speed perhaps during a tornado. The cask systems are able to store waste for several
decades, perhaps for more than a century. They are also designed to withstand extreme events, such as
a 30 foot drop onto a hard surface, and a 1475°F fire engulfing the cask for 30 minutes. Casks have also
been subjected to tests such as being struck broadside by a locomotive traveling at 80 MPH, without
failure of containment.
All transportation casks must be very robust, and must be designed to withstand a similar set of extreme
events or conditions. However, the requirements are somewhat less stringent for casks that ship less
radioactive payloads.
The safety record for the storage and transportation of radioactive materials is exceptional. There have
been over 3,000 used nuclear fuel shipments in the US (approximately 24,000 worldwide), over the
course of several decades, and there has never been a release of harmful amounts of radiation, or any
injuries, deaths or environmental damage.
Applications

Using Radiation In our Daily Lives

Nuclear science and technology improves our lives in many ways and in many different areas. It makes
our food safer; it improves the quality of tools, gauges, and machines; it diagnoses abnormalities of the
metabolism and treats cancers; it powers space applications; and it offers one of the cleanest and most
environmentally friendly ways of generating electricity.
Energy, isotopes, and radiation produced by nuclear science provide for a vast range of beneficial
applications. Here we highlight a few.
Agricultural Applications
Political Stability and Food Security
There is perhaps nothing more fundamental to human survival than political stability and food security.

Our struggle today and in the future is that population numbers have exploded within the past century,
with billions of more mouths to feed.
 Around 805 million humans on earth (approximately 1 out of 9) go to bed hungry every night.
 About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United
Nations. This is one person every four seconds.
With as much as 25 – 30% of the world’s food production being lost to insects, bacteria and rodents
after harvesting, there is an enormous need to find new ways to increase food production and deliver it
with minimum spoilage.
Nuclear technology uses radiation to improve the productivity of the entire food chain in a substantial
manner.
Here are just a few examples:
Water Use and Soil Management
 Neutron meters improve irrigation practices that help conserve water and protect vulnerable
land.
 Tagging fertilizers with radioisotopes can determine how plants are using nutrients.
 Nuclear techniques help increase crops yields and help determine which plants to grow in areas
with less available water.
 Selective breeding creates disease resistance plants with greater nutritional value.
Pest Control
 Sterile insect technique (SIT) uses gamma radiation to sterilize large populations of insects.
 The Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) and tsetse fly have been successful controlled using this
method.
Animal Health and Productivity
 Radioisotope tracers are used to follow the path of the food in animals’ digestive systems and
helps determine the nutritional value of the feed.
 Radiation techniques can diagnose harmful pathogens in animals early so we can vaccinate
them and eliminate the wide spread of diseases.
Food Safety
  Irradiation uses kills bacteria, molds, and parasites in our food.
 Irradiated food can be stored for an extended period without refrigeration, which increases
their availability in underdeveloped countries.
 Using lower does of ionizing radiation can lengthen the refrigerated life of fresh fish and chicken
for several weeks. Strawberries treated this way can last for about 30 days. Sealed, treated
foods can stay on your shelf at room temperature for years, like canned foods.

DID YOU KNOW?

Irradiation does not make food radioactive, and irradiated foods look and taste just like the fresh, raw
food.
Here are some of the ways food irradiation is used in the U.S.:
 Food for astronauts on space missions
 Meals for open-heart hospital patients
 In school cafeterias
 Meals on international flights
Art and Science Applications
By visiting the pages on this site, you probably are aware by now that there is hardly anything that does
not benefit from radiation. This is even true for the arts and sciences.
Understanding our Past
Carbon-14 dating has allowed us to accurately date historical artifacts. All living beings (plant or animal)
have the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. When plants or animals die, the ratio changes and this
change can be used to determine the matters age. This technique is used to date specimens from 50 to
60,000 years C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 – 60,000 years ago (useful for
dating organisms like Neanderthals and ice age animals).
 The age of Egyptian mummies is determined to be over 2,000 years old using carbon dating
 Charcoal from the “Marmes Man” site in southeastern Washington allowed us to determine
that the oldest known inhabited sites in North America are just over 10,000 years old.
Other radioactive techniques using beryllium, aluminum, potassium, argon, and uranium have been
developed to measure specimens older than 50,000 years.
 The age of Lucy, the most famous Australopithecus afarensis, was determined to be 3.2 million-
year-old using argon-argon dating.
 The age of Earth was determined to be 4.6 million years old using uranium-lead dating.
 The Potassium-argon method was used by the Mars Curiosity rover to date rocks on the surface
of Mars at 60-100 million years old.
DID YOU KNOW?
Carbon Dating
If we look at the carbon-14 atom, we find that C-14 does not last forever. There is a time when it loses
its extra neutrons and becomes carbon-12. The loss of those neutrons is called radioactive decay. That
decay happens regularly. For carbon, the decay happens in a few thousand years (5,730 years). Some
elements take longer, and others have a decay that happens over a period of minutes. Archaeologists
are able to use their knowledge of radioactive decay when they need to know the date of an object they
dug up. C-14 locked in an object from several thousand years ago will decay at a certain rate. With this
knowledge, archaeologists can measure how many thousands of years old an object is.
Creating Beauty
Very few people know that radiation plays a significant role in transforming gems into desirable colors.
Gemstones can be enhanced from their natural condition by irradiation.
 Diamonds change from off-white to green or yellow
 Pearls change to blue and gray (“black” pearls)
 Topaz changes from colorless to blue, intensifies yellow and orange, or creates green
Preserving Art and History
Radiation is used to restore and preserve artifacts that have been exposed to air. Irradiation kills
microorganisms that can cause decay.
By using an x-ray fluorescence technique we can determine the chemical makeup of paint in rare
paintings. This allows us to authenticate the age and place of origin of the painting and reveal a forgery.
Commercial Applications
Improving Public Safety
Runway lights in the Alaskan outback, heart pacemakers, smoke detectors, criminal investigation,
coating non-stick frying pan, luggage and security screening – all use radiation to make our lives easier
and more productive.
For example:
 The transparent plastic wrap used to package fruits and others foods depends on radiation for
its strength and clinging ability.
 Those runway lights in Alaska are made with tritium gas, a waste product of nuclear power
plants. These lights burn for up to 10 years without wires or an external power source, and
could cost only 1/5 to 1/2 the price of using regular lights.
DID YOU KNOW?
Smoke detectors have saved countless lives
Experts say the simple act of installing smoke detectors on each floor of your home can go a long way
toward saving your family from a fire. Today, the ionization smoke detector is the most commonly used.
This type of smoke detector is one of the many applications of research done by nuclear scientists and
engineers.
How it works
The ionization smoke detector uses a tiny bit of radioactive americium-241, a source of alpha radiation.
An air-filled space between two electrodes creates a chamber that permits a small, constant current to
flow between the electrodes. If smoke or heat enters the chamber, the electric current between the
electrodes is interrupted and the alarm is triggered. This smoke alarm is less expensive than other
designs and improves the original smoke alarm by measuring more than the heat of a fire. It can detect
particles of smoke too small to be visible.
Nuclear Energy
Safe, reliable, clean
The role electricity plays in our lives by enhancing our productivity, comfort, safety, health, and
economy is obvious. We live with the benefits of electricity every day. So much so that we take it for
granted that whenever we plug our phones and tablets into the wall socket, the power will be there.
While most people give little thought to where electricity comes from, there are many different ways to
generate electricity – including coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, and solar. Each option inherits
certain advantages that merit consideration whenever there is a need for a new power plant. Nuclear
generated electricity is unique in that it inherently addresses many of the short-comings of the other
means for power generation. The use of nuclear power provides answers for many problems in the
areas of the carbon emissions, fuel efficiency, cost , and reliability.
DID YOU KNOW?
 The U.S. nuclear reactor fleet produces 19 percent of the country’s electricity as a whole, and
even more in certain regions. More importantly, nuclear energy generates 63 percent of our
low-carbon electricity.
 Nuclear energy is mostly carbon-free and avoids the emissions associated with fossil fuels that
pollute the air and water.
 The power from one kilogram of uranium is approximately equivalent to 42 gallons of oil, 1 ton
of coal, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
 Operation of a nuclear plant generates 400 to 700 permanent jobs, which on average pay a 36
percent higher wage than other regional jobs.
Zero Carbon Emissions
In contrast to fossil fuel plants (coal, oil and gas), nuclear power plants do not produce any carbon
dioxide or sulfur emissions, which are major contributors to the greenhouse effect and acid rain,
respectively. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. nuclear power plants prevent 5.1 million
tons of sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from
entering the earth’s atmosphere each year.
Nuclear power reactors do contribute a measurable increase in radiation to the environment around a
nuclear power plant. However, this increase is relatively small compared to natural background
radiation, and is less than the radioactivity released from a typical coal plant. Even with this increase in
radiation, most employees of nuclear power plants receive exposures typically of workers in all
occupations. In addition, no evidence exists that show that small increases in radiation exposure having
negative health effects.
More energy for less

Like fossil fuels, the nuclear fuel raw materials come from the earth. Uranium, the primary fuel
material, is mined. The environmental impact of mining is well known; however, the advantage of
nuclear power comes from the amount of power that comes from a small amount of uranium. The
power from one kilogram of uranium is approximately equivalent to 42 gallons of oil, 1 ton of coal, or
17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Therefore, as a function of power consumption, very little uranium
needs to be removed from the ground; hence, the environmental impact of uranium mines is much less
compared with mining and drilling for fossil fuels.
Unlike oil or gas, nuclear fuel is solid; hence, nuclear fuel is immune to the environment problems posed
by spillage during transportation to a power plant. Unused nuclear fuel is only slightly more radioactive
that naturally occurring underground. Fuel delivery casks are designed with a high margin of safety to
ensure that even in the event of a transportation accident, the environment remains free of
contamination from the nuclear fuel.
Economical

Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production. Including capital and
non-fuel operating costs, the cost of operating a nuclear power plant is roughly equivalent to fossil
fuels. As of 2012, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 2.40 cents per kilowatt-
hour, for coal-fired plants 3.27 cents, for oil 22.48 cents, and for gas 3.40 cents. Costs for solar and wind
are still well beyond that considered to be competitive to the public.
The cost of regulation and industry oversight of nuclear power generation is substantially more than
that of other power generation sources; however, improvements in reliability and operational and
maintenance efficiency have contributed to reducing those costs.
Reliable Power
Currently, nuclear power plant capacity factors average over 85%. This is competitive with those of
fossil fired plants (average 50-60%), or solar and wind which have capacity factors in the 30% range, or
even lower. Most plants are designed to operate at full power regardless of the demand on electricity.
Nuclear power plants are particularly well suited for this purpose since they are designed to produce
large quantities of power and can sustain operation for up to two years without refueling.
The U.S. nuclear energy plants can supply large amounts of predictable, reliable electricity through
virtually every period of extreme heat and cold. During the 2014 Polar Vortex, nuclear energy
generation saw no drop in output and on the coldest day operated at 95 percent capacity.

How much and how well can one person communicate on nuclear energy in fewer than 90 seconds?
Hydrogen Generation
Nuclear energy will be key to the clean, economical, large-scale production of hydrogen from water as
a fuel for transportation and industry.
Problems inherent with fossil fuels are avoided with energy production using hydrogen. Per unit of fuel,
hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles are about twice as efficient as combustion energies. Unlike conventional
engines, fuel cells emit only water vapor and heat. 50 million tons of hydrogen are produced for global
consumption per year. The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy is for hydrogen to produce 10% of our
total energy demand by 2030.
When used as an energy carrier, 9 million tons of hydrogen could power 20-30 million cars or 5-8 million
homes. If we develop the production of hydrogen fuel to its full potential, we can reduce our demand
for oil by over 11 million barrels per day by the year 2040. Only nuclear energy can produce hydrogen at
large enough scales to meet future demand while avoiding the release of greenhouse gases.
Hydrogen Technologies
 Electrolysis –Electrolyzing water, splitting the hydrogen from the oxygen, is a mature technology
and is used primarily for the production of high purity oxygen and hydrogen.
 Steam Reforming – Sometimes called fossil fuel reforming is a method for hydrogen production
or other useful products from hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas. Steam reforming of
methane accounts for nearly all the 50 million tons of hydrogen used world-wide for ammonia
based fertilizers and oil product enhancement.
 Thermo Chemical Processes –Hydrogen produced by high temperature thermo-chemical
processes has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale but promises high efficiency
production in the future.
DID YOU KNOW
 Hydrogen, when produced from fossil fuels, is no solution for energy independence or
environmental compatibility
 Wind, solar, and geothermal do not possess the energy density to generate sufficient hydrogen
 The transition to a nuclear/hydrogen economy can begin today with electrolysis
 Should the nuclear/hydrogen vision materialize then uranium resource depletion becomes
important
Industrial Applications
Since ionizing radiation can penetrate matter, it is used for a variety of industrial methods.
Non Destructive Testing
It is essential to test materials, products, structures or buildings without altering their properties or
affecting their usefulness. X-rays and gamma rays are used in industrial radiography to make images of
the inside of solid products, as a means of nondestructive testing (NDT) and inspection. NDT radiography
is used in the petroleum, chemical and nuclear industries, as well as on assembly lines to test consumer
goods.
 Car wheels, receive a quality check of this type before leaving the factory.
 Pipelines are inspected both during installation and maintenance to ensure that welds remain
intact.
 Adding a gamma tracer to a gas or liquid in a closed system makes it possible to find a hole in a
tube.
 Adding a tracer to the surface of the component of a motor makes it possible to measure wear
by measuring the activity of the lubricating oil.
Ensuring Product Quality
 Nucleonic gauges – instruments that use a radioisotope source to measure materials and
products – are used to ensure optimum coating thicknesses, such as metal-coating.
 Moisture gauges are used in construction materials (asphalt and concrete), glass, mineral
processing, chemicals and food.
 Radioisotope gauges are used to measure mass per unit of area in manufacturing aluminum foil,
paper and steel plate.
Enhancing Material Quality
 Radiation is is used to create high-performance polymeric materials.
 Radiation can cause cross-linking of some molecules to form giant molecules which have higher
heat, chemical and mechanical resistance. This helps harden plastics.
 The wire and cable industry also uses cross-linking to strengthen the insulation of wires and
cables and make them more heat resistant.
 Radiation vulcanisation of natural rubber latex (RVNRL) imparts strength and elasticity, making it
ideal for the production of surgical gloves (standard and allergy-free), catheters, balloons used
in cardiac procedures and even automobile tires.
Electrostatic control – To avoid the build-up of static electricity in production of paper, plastics,
synthetic textiles, etc., a ribbon-shaped source of the alpha emitter 241Am can be placed close to the
material at the end of the production line. The source ionizes the air to remove electric charges on the
material.
Radioactive tracers – Since radioactive isotopes behave, chemically, mostly like the inactive element,
the behavior of a certain chemical substance can be followed by tracing the radioactivity.
Oil and Gas Exploration- Nuclear well logging is used to help predict the commercial viability of new or
existing wells. The technology involves the use of a neutron or gamma-ray source and a radiation
detector which are lowered into boreholes to determine the properties of the surrounding rock such as
porosity and lithography.
Medical Applications
Nuclear medicine and radiology are the whole of medical techniques that involve radiation or
radioactivity to diagnose, treat and prevent disease. While radiology has been used for close to a
century, “nuclear medicine” began approximately 50 years ago. Today, about one-third of all
procedures used in modern hospitals involve radiation or radioactivity. These procedures are among
the best and most effective life-saving tools available, they are safe and painless and don’t require
anesthesia, and they are helpful to a broad span of medical specialties, from pediatrics to cardiology to
psychiatry.
While both nuclear medicine and radiology are used in diagnostic procedures (to determine a patient’s
health, monitor the course of an illness or follow the progress of treatment) and therapeutic procedures
(to treat illnesses), they are implemented differently. In nuclear medicine, radioisotopes are introduced
into the body internally, whereas in radiology X-rays penetrate the body from outside the body.
DID YOU KNOW?
Personal health improves with radiation.
 It allows for quick, safe, early, and more accurate medical diagnoses.
 It can be harnessed as a treatment for certain diseases.
 Tens of millions of patients are treated with nuclear medicine each year and more than 10,000
hospitals worldwide use radioisotopes in medicine.
 Employment of nuclear medicine technologists is projected to grow 20 percent from 2012 to
2022, faster than the average for all occupations.
Major Advances in Nuclear Medicine Diagnosis and Treatment

Exploratory surgery used to be the way doctors investigated health problems. Doctors would cut, poke,
and prod. But since the 1940’s, nuclear technologies have offered an increasing array of diagnostic
techniques that help patients avoid the pain of surgery while their physicians gain knowledge of the
body’s inner workings.
X-rays, MRI scanners, CAT scans, and ultrasound each use nuclear science and technology to
troubleshoot different parts of the body and diagnose conditions. Each of these are non-invasive
procedures, meaning patients do not need to undergo surgery. More advanced nuclear medicine uses
computers, detectors, and radioisotopes to give doctors even more information about a patient’s
internal workings. Known as nuclear imaging, these procedures include bone scanning, Positron
Emission Tomography (PET), Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) and Cardiovascular
Imaging. The use of these procedures depends on the patient’s symptoms.
Radioisotopes are useful because the radiation they emit can be located in the body. The isotopes can
be administered by injection, inhalation, or orally. A gamma camera captures images from isotopes in
the body that emit radiation. Then, computers enhance the image, allowing physicians to detect tumors
and fractures, measure blood flow, or determine thyroid and pulmonary functions.
The first radiopharmaceutical to be widely used was the fission product, iodine-131, in the form of the
simple salt, sodium iodide. Its use was established in the late forties as a diagnostic test for certain
thyroid disorders. Since the drug could be administered orally, in solution, it was referred to in the press
as the “Atomic Cocktail”.
Since those pioneering days, the practice of nuclear medicine has soared in most developed countries.
Approximately 16 million people in the United States are tested diagnostically each year with a
radioactive drug, either in vivo or in vitro.

In vivo
There are fewer than 50 radiopharmaceuticals for in vivo administration that are in common use. Many
of them are used for identical diagnostic tests; the choice of a particular one frequently depends on the
personal preferences of the practitioner. The development of more effective radiopharmaceuticals is
being intensively investigated in several laboratories all over the world and it is likely that the drugs used
in nuclear medicine will be altered considerably during the next 10 to 20 years.
Radiopharmaceutical Application
1311 (also 12SI)- Sodium iodide Thyroid uptake
1311 – Rose Bengal Liver scan
1311 – Hippuran Kidney scan
1311 – Human serum albumin Blood volume, circulatory studies
1311 – lodinated oils Fat absorption studies
51 Cr – Sodium chromate Spleen scanning (by tagging red blood cells)
57Co – Vitamin B-12 Pernicious anemia diagnosis
Radiopharmaceutical Application
198Au – Gold colloid (less than 1 micron diameter Liver scan
particle)
197Hg – Chlormerodrin Brain and kidney scans
75Se – Selenomethionine Pancreas scan
1311 or 99mTc – Macroaggregated serum albumin Lung scan
(30- 50 micron diameter particles)
18F – Sodium fluoride Bone scan

In vitro
There are a number of in vitro clinical tests which employ radioactive reagents, but the most important
one in present use is the radioimmunoassay (RIA) for body hormones.Radioimmunoassay is an
exceedingly sensitive technique that is capable of measuring most hormones at the nanogram to
picogram level. It is also very specific since the antibody binds its specific hormone very selectively. A
surprisingly wide range of hormones and other antigens can be assayed by this method. A few examples
are assays for insulin, thyroxine, prostaglandins, digitoxin, human growth hormone, and the “hepatitis
associated” antigen, the test for which can minimize hepatitis injection through blood transfusions by
pre-testing donors.
Using Nuclear Technology to Explore Space
Powering Space Missions
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) are a nuclear technology attached to a spacecraft that
supplies power and heating. When the radioactive isotope plutonium-238 in the RTG decays, it gives off
heat, which can be used to generate electricity using a thermocouple device. This process is known as
thermoelectric conversion. The decay heat warms one end of the thermocouple, and the cold
environment of space cools the other. This process produces an electric current that then powers the
spacecraft. Thermocouples can even be found here on Earth in appliances such as refrigerators and air
conditioners. Excess decay heat is also pumped through the spacecraft’s systems in order to warm up its
instruments and subsystems, allowing it to operate in cold environments.
DID YOU KNOW?
Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generators have been involved in more than 25 space missions providing
power in deep space for Voyager 1 and 2, several Apollo missions, Galileo, Nimbus and LES. RTGs have
enabled major scientific accomplishments such as:
 the Cassini spacecraft and Huygens probe’s exploration of Saturn and Titan, one of its moons,
since 2004
 the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars in 2014
 the flyby images of Pluto from the New Horizons mission in 2015
Current Applications
MMRTG (photo by NASA)
According to NASA, eight generations of RTGs have been used in U.S. spacecraft since 1961. Currently,
they use the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) in the vacuum of space or
in planetary atmospheres.
 MMRTGs carry approximately 10.6 lbs of plutonium-238
 They support spacecraft for at least 14 years and supply heat to maintain proper functioning
 They provide around 110 watts of power (a 13’’ color TV uses approximately 150 watts)
 They are also modular, meaning that if more power is needed for a mission, several can be used
together to meet this higher power requirement.
NASA is also working on a new RTG technology, called the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator
(ASRG). The ASRG, like the MMRTG, converts decay heat from plutonium-238 into electricity, but does
not use thermocouples. Instead, the decay heat causes gas to expand and oscillate a piston, similar to a
car engine. This moves a magnet back and forth through a coil of wire over 100 times per second,
generating electricity for the spacecraft. The amount of electricity generated is more than that of
MMRTGs, at approximately 130 watts, with much less plutonium-238 (approximately 8 lbs less). This is a
result of the more efficient Stirling cycle conversion. If more power is needed for a mission, ASRGs can
also be used together to generate more power. There are no missions scheduled as of yet that would
use ASRGs, but they are being designed for 14-year mission lives.
Instruments
Nuclear technology in space exploration is not limited to the use of decay heat from radioisotopes for
power. There are many instruments used to detect radiation and determine the composition of distant
stars or another planet’s rocks, atmosphere, and soil, among many other things. One of these
instruments is called the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS). This instrument determines the
composition of rocks and soils using alpha particles and X-rays. To do this, alpha particles are generated
in the APXS and directed at a target. The alpha particles interact with the materials in the target, which
then emits X-rays of certain energies. Each nuclide emits its own unique X-ray energy “fingerprint”,
enabling the APXS to determine the makeup of the target.
Future Applications
While there is no current space application for the large energy generation capability of nuclear
reactors, future applications include manned exploration of much of the solar system and reduced trip
times between planets. Radiation exposure during space exploration can be dangerously high even for
short periods of time, making the use of nuclear-powered rockets is almost requisite for interplanetary
visits. Additionally, nuclear reactors can be used for electricity production in inter-planetary missions
with large power requirements, such as manned missions and missions with a large scientific payload.
How are nuclear rockets different from traditional chemical rockets?
Chemical rockets operate on the principle of combustion. Fuel is mixed with oxygen and ignited to
produce heat and combustion products. These combustion products expand rapidly and are pushed
through a nozzle. This process causes an equal and opposite force which accelerates the spacecraft.
Nuclear thermal rockets operate similarly to chemical rockets; however, heat is provided through a
fission chain reaction, rather than the combustion of fuel. The propellant used in nuclear thermal
rockets is most commonly liquid hydrogen, as it enables the rocket to accelerate as efficiently as
possible. Nuclear thermal rockets are nearly twice as efficient as the best chemical rockets, enabling
them to reach higher speeds with similar thrust.
Nuclear electric rockets operate on an entirely different principle to provide thrust. Ions are accelerated
to very high speeds using electrostatic or electromagnetic forces powered by a nuclear reactor.
Acceleration in these engines is small compared to nuclear thermal and chemical rockets, but the top
speed and range is much better than that from any other type of propulsion due to its even higher
efficiency.

What spacecraft use nuclear technology to further space exploration?

Several spacecraft have used radioisotope thermoelectric power, nuclear instruments, and in one case
even used a nuclear reactor. Below is a list of some of the better known NASA missions and programs
that have used nuclear technology.
Voyager I and II

Voyager I and II are identical spacecraft that were designed to explore the outer planets. They were
launched in 1977 and are still operating today. In fact, the Voyagers completed their 4-planet mission
and have a new mission – explore interstellar space. The Voyagers were designed to explore the outer
reaches of our solar system and needed a power supply that could support them in the dark and cold
environment, thus they each fitted with an RPS system. The Voyagers also carried instruments to detect
the various types of space radiation mentioned in the section “Space radiation protection”. Link to this
section, here?
Cassini
The Cassini spacecraft, launched October 15, 1997, was designed to explore Saturn and its moons. RPS
technology was chosen as the electrical power supply because of Saturn’s distance from the Sun. At the
beginning of its mission, the spacecraft had about 890 watts of electrical power but by the end had only
about 630 watts of electrical power, roughly equivalent to that used by a small air conditioner unit.
Cassini is still in operation today, working on a second extended mission called the Cassini Solstice
Mission.
Spirit and Opportunity
The Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers were sent to Mars in June and July 2003 to explore the
possibility of past and/or present signs of water on Mars. The rovers do not use RPSs for electrical
power. Instead, they run on solar power. However, the rovers each have one APXS to detect the
composition of the rocks and soil on Mars’s surface. Although not the only instrument on the rovers, the
APXS brings them closer to achieving their mission goal.
Mars Science Laboratory: Curiosity Rover

The Mars Science Laboratory was launched in November 26, 2011 and is designed to explore the
possibility of past life on Mars. In order to operate for a long duration, the lab – a mobile rover named
Curiosity – was supplied with a MMRTG. This ensures that the rover has enough power for at least 687
Earth days and enough heat (approximately 110 watts total electrical power) for operation of several
instruments, a robotic arm, wheels, a computer, and radio. Mars is extremely cold, so in order for the
rover to stay warm enough to function properly, excess decay heat from the MMRTG circulates warm
fluids throughout the rover to regulate its temperature. The rover is also equipped with an APXS, again
used to determine the composition of Martian rocks and soils.
SNAP Reactors
The System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) program was a joint program executed by the
Department of Energy and NASA with the purpose of developing “compact, lightweight reliable atomic
electric devices for use in space, sea, and land use.” Out of the program, only 1 reactor was flown and
remains to date the only reactor ever put into space by the United States. The SNAP-10A system
weighed under 950 lbs and reached a steady-state power output of 600 watts before shutting down
after 43 days due to a separate electrical component failure in the satellite it was powering. The SNAP-
10A used thermoelectric conversion to convert heat into electricity and was cooled with a sodium-
potassium liquid metal coolant.
ROVER/NERVA
The ROVER/NERVA program was a nuclear rocket development program that operated during the
1950’s and 1960’s. Many tests of nuclear rockets were conducted at the Nevada Test Site. About 40
miles NW of Las Vegas, the Nevada Test Site is infamous for the numerous above and belowground tests
of nuclear weapons conducted there from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. The test rockets used liquid
hydrogen as a propellant and a graphite-uranium matrix as the fuel. Development continued until 1972,
when changing national priorities discontinued funding for the nuclear rocket.
Prometheus
Project Prometheus was a program conducted in the mid-2000’s to develop a nuclear reactor powered
spacecraft capable of propelling a large unmanned vehicle to Jupiter. The name of the spacecraft to be
developed in the program was the Jupiter Icy-Moons Orbiter (JIMO). This nuclear-electric propelled
spacecraft was powered by a helium-xenon cooled nuclear reactor and was discontinued in 2005 due to
high development costs.

What does nuclear technology enable for space exploration?

Radioisotope Power Systems run by nuclear decay, which does not require light or heat from the Sun.
This makes RPS systems ideal for spacecraft that will be in cold or dark environments. The plutonium-
238 in RPS systems is also long-lived in comparison to other types of technology used to power
spacecraft, permitting much longer missions. Using nuclear technology in space exploration continues to
help further our knowledge of our solar system, including its outer reaches where humans cannot yet
travel to or survive. Keeping the Voyager spacecraft, their mission, and their nuclear technology in
mind, we will gain more knowledge on interstellar space, still yet to be explored. Although the area
around Saturn had been previously explored, the Cassini spacecraft was able to give scientists a better
view of the planet and some of its moons. All three Mars rovers are exploring either the possibility of
water or of life on Mars. As we can see, nuclear technology has allowed these spacecraft to either
complete or work toward completing their primary mission, and in some cases, extended missions.
Therefore, with the use of nuclear technology in spacecraft, we are able to learn more about our solar
system – and eventually – further out into space.

Protection from Space Radiation

It might seem that except for stars, planets, and asteroids, outer space is entirely empty, but there is far
more to it than what we can see. In fact there are particles (smaller than atoms) moving at extreme
speeds through the empty vacuum of space where there is almost no material to slow them down.
These are not much of a problem here on Earth because the atmosphere stops most particles before
they can reach us on the ground. However, these particles are a serious problem for astronauts. When
such fast particles collide or pass near an atom it causes ionization, meaning it knocks away that atom’s
electrons. This process changes the way it connects to other atoms and can easily break apart molecular
bonds, including the DNA that holds our blueprints inside of each cell. Our cells can repair most of these
damages if the radiation isn’t too intense, but sometimes the damage is beyond repair.

A Solar Flare, image taken by the TRACE satellite (photo by NASA)

There are three major sources of space radiation, each with different risks and behavior. Small particles
are constantly being ejected from our sun, including negatively charged electrons and many other atoms
such as hydrogen or helium that are positively charged (their electrons were stripped away). These
charged atoms are called ions, and in the case of hydrogen it is given a special name: “proton”. The Sun
is constantly swirling and churning, and it occasionally erupts in certain spots to eject large bursts of
particles. If that burst happens to be aimed at the Earth or a spacecraft it will produce a “storm” of
particles, called a Solar Particle Event (SPE). These can be especially dangerous for astronauts working
outside during a spacewalk.
There are also other particles that come from outside of our solar system, called Galactic Cosmic Rays
(GCR). These are often much heavier charged particles, including iron, that were probably shot out of
distant supernova star explosions long ago. They are so heavy and energetic that they can shoot
through a spacecraft and through the body, where they can cause even more damage to our DNA than
many lighter particles.
There is one final large source of radiation in space, again made of those lighter particles (protons and
electrons). These can become trapped inside of Earth’s magnetic field and continue to speed around
the planet within bands of radiation, also termed the “Van Allen Belts”. These trapped particles are only
a problem for astronauts that stay in Earth’s orbit. However, astronauts that leave Earth orbit for
exploration missions will actually be hit by more particles overall, since those other sources (GCR and
SPE) are often deflected by Earth’s magnetic field.

How can we measure space radiation?

Radiation can be detected in a variety of ways, but all methods rely on the process of ionization. It can
be detected in electronic semiconductor chips or in chambers filled with special gas, where the electrons
released by ionization are collected and eventually sent to some measuring device. Other materials
produce light when they are ionized, a process known as scintillation, and light sensors can measure this
light to determine the amount of radiation energy deposited. Other detectors can take advantage of
the ionizing damage that breaks apart molecules, such as CR-39 plastic. In these, a heavy particle track
leaves a channel of weakened material so that dipping the plastic in certain chemicals causes those
channels to melt away quickly, and the particle track is then visible in a microscope. There are many
other methods to observe particles (including cloud chambers that you can build at home), and many
more are developed every year.
Determining the amount of energy deposited within a certain amount of material and dividing that
energy by its mass can provide a reasonable estimate for the damage caused by ionizing radiation of any
kind. This is referred to as “Dose” and it is a good starting point to determine how a person’s health will
be affected when they are exposed to radiation. The heavy particles in space radiation are much more
damaging to DNA than other radiation types, even for the same deposited energy; so special
instruments are needed in space. Devices such as the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) and the
Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter (TEPC) are critical for protecting astronauts on the International
Space Station. These can deliver a warning to astronauts so that they can take shelter during a solar
particle event, and thus prevent very dangerous amounts of radiation dose.

How can we protect astronauts from space radiation?

On Earth, barriers of heavy material, such as lead or concrete, are often used to stop most types of
radiation. Surrounding a spacecraft with heavy shielding is not a practical approach, though, as each
pound of payload currently adds up to $10,000 to the cost of a mission just to get it into orbit. That
expense is even greater for exploratory missions, such as to the Moon or Mars, which need even more
fuel to escape from Earth’s orbit. One option for these missions is to create a small “storm shelter”
inside of a spacecraft, where the walls are thick enough to stop most particles. Astronauts cannot spend
all of their time in such small spaces, though, so a warning system is required to tell when a solar particle
event is occurring or is on the way.It is also possible to simply design the spacecraft so that most of the
living areas are built within a central area, while storage of other necessary equipment and food
supplies can be located within the walls. One of the best ways to protect astronauts from space
radiation hazards is to minimize the time they must spend in the unprotected zone of outer space during
exploratory missions. This requires much faster spacecraft, such as those currently possible with
nuclear-powered propulsion.
In the future, perhaps sooner than we think, spacecraft could feature magnetic shielding much like the
field produced naturally here on Earth so that harmful charged particles can be deflected entirely. This
form of active shielding would likely need a significant amount of electric power, and would therefore
almost certainly require a nuclear power source. This may be the ultimate solution for space radiation
protection in the effort to expand space exploration for long-term missions, even beyond the Moon and
Mars.
Radon
No more than four (4 pCi/L)!
The average indoor radon level is estimated to be about 1.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and about 0.4
pCi/L of radon is normally found in the outside air. Most homes today can be reduced to 2 pCi/L.
Each year, it is estimated that radon causes about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, according to
EPA’s 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003). It’s found naturally in the
ground and seeps through cracks or holes in the foundation and become trapped in your home.
The Discovery of Radon in Homes
In 1984, the scientific world woke up to the existence of radon in homes. A construction engineer
triggered radiation alarms while entering the Limerick nuclear power plant near Philadelphia. His home
in Boyertown was tested and the radon concentration was a shocking 2,700 pCi/L.
The family, including small children, was immediately evacuated. Very high radon levels were also found
in nearby houses. This region, known as the Reading Prong, has low-grade uranium deposits and
encompasses parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
Radon Testing:
There are relatively simple tests for radon gas, but these tests are not commonly done, even in areas of
known systematic hazards. Home radon test kits are widely available and can be found at your local
Walmart, Target, or hardware store. The short-term radon test kits used for screening purposes are
inexpensive (under $15) and some states offer home test for free. The kit includes a collector that the
user hangs in the lowest livable floor of the home for 2 to 7 days. The user then sends the collector to a
laboratory for analysis.
If your home radon kits result is 4 pCi/L or higher you should contact your state radon office and
schedule a follow-up long-term test for a better understanding of your year-round average radon level.
If you followed up with a long-term test and the results are 4 pCi/L or more, you should fix your home.
The five principal ways of reducing the amount of radon in your home are:
 Improving the ventilation of the dwelling and avoiding the transport of radon from the
basement into living rooms;
 Increasing under-floor ventilation;
 Installing a radon sump system in the basement;
  Sealing floors and walls; and
 Installing a positive pressurization or positive supply ventilation system.
The half-life for radon is 3.8 days, indicating that once the source is removed, the hazard will be greatly
reduced within a few weeks.
Myths About Nuclear Energy

# 1: Americans get most of their yearly radiation dose from nuclear power plants.
Truth: We are surrounded by naturally occurring radiation. Only 0.005% of the average American’s
yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal [1], 200 times less
than a cross-country flight, and about the same as eating 1 banana per year [2].
# 2: A nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb.
Truth: It is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon; these weapons contain very
special materials in very particular configurations, neither of which are present in a nuclear reactor.
#3: Nuclear energy is bad for the environment.
Truth: Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gasses during operation. Over their full lifetimes, they
result in comparable emissions to renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar [3]. Nuclear energy
requires less land use than most other forms of energy.
# 4: Nuclear energy is not safe.
Truth: Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available. No member of the
public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50-year history of commercial nuclear power in the
U.S. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office [4].
# 5: There is no solution for huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated.
Truth: All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a
football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this “waste” can be recycled [5]. Used fuel is
currently being safely stored. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific
advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe
method for their ultimate disposal[6].
# 6: Most Americans don’t support nuclear power.
Truth: In a survey conducted in September 2013, it was found that 82% of Americans feel nuclear
energy will play an important role in meeting the country’s future electricity needs, and half believe this
importance will increase with time. In addition, 84% of respondents favor renewing operating licenses
for nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards. Also, 77% believe that nuclear
power plants operating in the United States are safe and secure, a four percentage point increase from
last February[7].
# 7: An American “Chernobyl” would kill thousands of people.
Truth: A Chernobyl-type accident could not have happened outside of the Soviet Union because this
type of reactor was never built or operated here. The known fatalities during the Chernobyl accident
were mostly emergency first responders [8]. Of the people known to have received a high radiation dose,
the increase in cancer incidence is too small to measure due to other causes of cancer such as air
pollution and tobacco use.
# 8: Nuclear waste cannot be safely transported.
Truth: Used fuel is being safely shipped by truck, rail, and cargo ship today. To date, thousands of
shipments have been transported with no leaks or cracks of the specially-designed casks [9].
# 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.
Truth: Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts [10]. Most of the waste from
this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for
10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be
easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife.
# 10: Nuclear energy can’t reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Truth: Nuclear-generated electricity powers electric trains and subway cars as well as autos today. It
has also been used in propelling ships for more than 50 years. That use can be increased since it has
been restricted by unofficial policy to military vessels and ice breakers. In the near-term, nuclear power
can provide electricity for expanded mass-transit and plug-in hybrid cars. Small modular reactors can
provide power to islands like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Nantucket and Guam that currently run their electrical
grids on imported oil. In the longer-term, nuclear power can directly reduce our dependence on foreign
oil by producing hydrogen for use in fuel cells and synthetic liquid fuels.
1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements No. 92 and 95
2. Brodsky, A. 1978. CRC Handbook of Radiation Measurement and Protection. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, Inc.
3. Meier,P.J., 2002. Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for
Climate Change Policy Analysis.
4. Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/)
5. Krane, K.S., 1988. Introductory Nuclear Physics. John Wiley and Sons
6. Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD report, 1999. Progress Towards Geologic Disposal of Radioactive
Waste: Where do We Stand?
7. Questionnaire for September 2013: National Public Opinion Tracking Survey, Bisconti Research,
Inc.,
8. Chernobyl Forum reports 20-year findings, offers recommendations, Nuclear News, Oct-05
9. NRC: Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 2012
10. K.S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, John Wiley and Sons, 1988
Climate Change and Nuclear Energy
What is happening?
The Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is expected to rise
another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years.[1] Small changes in the average temperature of the
planet have begun to translate into dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Melting sea ice, swelling
sea levels, changes in precipitation, and increasing carbon emissions are a few noticeable changes. Many
places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more
frequent and severe heat waves.
How did we get here?
Human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (methane,
nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases) into the atmosphere.[2] These gases act as a blanket, trapping
energy in the atmosphere and causing a warming effect. They remain in the atmosphere for a few years
to thousands of years, mixing and becoming roughly the same levels regardless of its original location.
Primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States include –
 Electricity production (34% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – over 70% of our electricity
comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.
 Transportation (27% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – comes from burning fossil fuel for our
cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. About 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum
based, which includes gasoline and diesel.
 Industry (21% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – comes from burning fossil fuels for energy.
 Businesses and Homes (11% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – comes from fossil fuels
burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of
waste.
  Agriculture (7% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – Come from livestock such as cows,
agricultural soils, and rice production.
 Land Use and Forestry (offset of 15% of 2010 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as
a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the
United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the
atmosphere than they emit.[3]
Nuclear Energy and Climate Change
Nuclear energy is an essential part of a clean energy strategy. Electricity generated from nuclear power
plants releases no carbon dioxide, avoiding emissions of over two billion tons per year.[4] Other nuclear
technologies that could be used to reduce greenhouse gases include electric and hybrid vehicles, nuclear
desalination (purification) of water, and the use of hydrogen in the production of transport fuels from
crude oil as tar sands are used increasingly as the oil source. Nuclear energy can also be used to make
hydrogen electrolytically, contributing to the hydrogen economy.[5] In the future high-temperature
reactors are likely to be used to make it.
Resources
Climate Time Machine
Personal energy meter
World Nuclear Association. “Nuclear Energy and Climate Change”
Reactor Safety
Safety of a reactor is of prime concern to its owner, for several reasons: to ensure the safety of the
public, the reactor operators, and of the investment itself. Therefore, the design of a reactor is
developed according to industry standards.
These industry standards are developed by expert committees. They incorporate the best design,
construction and operational standards, which have been developed over many decades of experience.
For example, the standards for reactor pressure-vessel design arose out of standards for the
construction of boilers for Mississippi River boats that had previously been failing. The standards have
since been modified and added to for the fabrication of very thick stainless steel pressure vessels far
advanced from those on the paddle-wheel steamers.
The building of a reactor takes many steps: choice of a suitable site; design of the power plant to fit that
site; fabrication of the components and construction of the plant; low power commissioning; and,
finally, full power operation. At each stage, the designer assures the safety of operation.
In addition, the licensing authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) overviews the process and
issues permits and licenses at significant points to allow work to proceed. The NRC has previously
reviewed the industry standards and issued them (sometimes with modifications) as NRC standards
incorporated into law — thereby ensuring that the best of industrial practices are incorporated into all
new plants.
Design
When a plant is designed, it does not start from scratch; it can already incorporate all that is good in
industrial practice using industry standards.
Industry standards cover every aspect of plant design from its layout to the safety of individual
components. For example, the construction of a 9″ thick stainless steel vessel has its fabrication
standards, while the wiring of monitoring and control circuits has its own standards. Each set of
standards has been developed and approved by experts in that particular part of the technology.
However, most of them will incorporate certain safety principles, which are specified in general design
criteria approved again by a consensus of experts.
Using these safety principles and the design standards for the details of design, fabrication and eventual
construction, the design team has to design a plant for safe operation.
Design Standards
A reactor is designed for a particular site according to industry standards for safe design and
construction of all its components and systems as well as its operation. These industry standards
incorporate the best design, construction and operational standards, which have been developed over
many decades of experience. For example, the standards for reactor pressure-vessel design arose out of
standards for the construction of boilers for Mississippi River boats that had previously been failing. The
standards have since been modified and added to for the fabrication of very thick stainless steel
pressure vessels far advanced from those on the paddle-wheel steamers. These standards are
developed by expert committees under the aegis of professional not-for-profit societies such as the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Industry standards cover every aspect of plant design from its layout to the safety of individual
components. For example, the construction of a 9″ thick stainless steel vessel has its fabrication
standards, while the wiring of monitoring and control circuits has its own standards. Each set of
standards has been developed and approved by experts in that particular part of the technology.
Many of the standards are very specialized, covering perhaps the details of dye-penetrant testing of
pipes and vessels to search for any surface flaws during fabrication. Others will deal with the separation
of control systems from safety systems amongst the wiring, and still others will deal with seismic
response analysis of plant components. Most of them will incorporate certain safety principles, which
are specified in the general design criteria approved again by a consensus of experts.

Safety Principles
There are six principles of safety that are the same for all machinery, from modern cars to windmills to
dams to nuclear plants. The goal in creating new machinery is to comply with as many of these
principles as possible, depending on what the regulation for that particular machinery requires. In the
nuclear industry, regulation requires compliance with all six of them.
These safety principles are:
Multiple Barriers Typically, if one knows that one might get hurt from machinery, the primary safety
requirement is to keep the user clear of any danger, by providing at least one or preferably multiple
barriers. Cars offer multiple barriers in a similar fashion. They have collapsible front and rear ends;
airbags; and seatbelts, to protect people from harm in case of a crash. Nuclear power plants also offer
multiple barriers: the canned fuel, the pressure vessel and the containment, to protect the public from
the release of radioactive materials.
Redundancy It is a good principle that if something must work, then more than one of them is included
just like four wheel brakes on a car. In a nuclear power plant, there are four different ways of obtaining a
shutdown when needed: shutdown by heat feedback; dual active-shutdown systems; operator
shutdown, or triple electronic systems.
Diversity Then to be sure that one safety system works, it is preferable that the second be of a different
design and even be made of different materials, just like foot brakes and hand brakes in a car. This
ensures that if the first system fails, the second system won’t fail for the identical reason. In a nuclear
power plant, diversity is obtained through different designs of control rods and shutdown rods, and
through different designs of electronic systems.
Protection from human error While humans can act rapidly and responsibly, they can also make
mistakes, so incorporating automatic actions for times when the human makes a mistake is good safety
practice. For example, some cars offer automatic fuel line cut-off on impact. In nuclear power plants, an
automatic reactor shutdown offers that protection.
Monitoring One needs to know how the machinery is working and whether there are signs that it might
fail, like low oil pressure in your car, or in modern cars, low pressure in your tires. Nuclear power plants
are monitored extensively throughout the entire heat production process.
Passive rather than active safety systems Where possible it is good practice to make use of the laws of
nature to correct situations. In nuclear power plants, gravity is used to drop a barrier or a control rod
more reliably than an active mechanism to do the same thing.

Designing a Reactor for Safe Operation

A reactor designer first makes sure that the fission process can be shutdown in a variety of ways. The
primary defense is by ensuring that the core is designed so that high temperatures automatically change
the core characteristics, fissioning is reduced and the temperatures go back down. This is called inherent
safety. Secondly, multiple automatic electronic systems monitoring the core for abnormal temperatures
will insert control rods to stop the fission, and, if necessary, automatic fast shutdown rods are also
available to act as brakes. Finally, there is always the operator who watches control room monitors. He
can also instantly insert the shutdown rods from a single button.
Next, the designer must ensure that the reactor is always cooled — generally in current commercial
reactors, by water. Thus, the plant has more-than-one water path (generally three loops) to bring cooled
water into the vessel. Monitors alert automatic valves to open or close so that adequate water is
brought in and that the pressures in various vessels in the steam side are within limits. In an emergency,
there is also a completely separate fourth cooling system. Finally, the operator also watches significant
water temperatures, pressures and flows on monitors, to be able to take manual action if needed. This
might include shutting the system down and/or activating the separate emergency cooling system. He
can also bypass any valves that might be sticking.
The plant itself is designed to quality standards that are higher than in any other industry with sufficient
margins in materials and designs to take care of any accident conditions. Materials do not melt just
because the temperature is a little raised and vessels do not burst even when the pressure is above
normal operational values.
Furthermore, the whole plant is designed to withstand earthquakes beyond any historically expected,
and to withstand extreme weather conditions and their consequences. For example, the outer
containment can withstand hurricane missiles like a flying car or shafts of wood and metal. Greenpeace
activists provided an excellent test of the containment when they fired mortar missiles at the French
Super-Phenix plant from across the river. They could only chip the surface of its concrete. Later, during
hurricane Andrew in Florida, the safest place for families of the operators as the hurricane passed
directly over the plant was inside its containment.

Experience
There have been four significant accidents in the development of nuclear power — in Canada (1952), in
Britain (1957), in the US (1979) and in Russia (1986). From each of those events, more management and
safety lessons have been learnt and incorporated into designs. The Canadian, British and Russian designs
are no longer used. There have been no accidents in the last 15 years while 104 nuclear plants have
provided the US with one fifth of its electrical needs. Over 300 more are in operation around the world
providing energy day-by-day without noxious emissions.
The results of safe design.
The Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland published in 2000 a comprehensive study of energy-related
accidents. Comparing them per Terawatt-year, Hydroelectricity has 884, coal has 342, gas has 85 and the
nuclear option has a history of only eight.

Regulation
The United States has established a Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assure the safety of all sources of
radiation that might arise from Special Materials — fissionable materials. Thus, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulates nuclear power plants through a series of reviews, permits and licenses.
However, safety is the responsibility of competent designers and operators, not the regulators. The
safety of a reactor is ensured by its designers. They establish the criteria for safe operation and design
according to accepted industry standards. Regulators, however, independently review these criteria and
standards and make a judgement as to their adequacy. The regulators judge the expertise of the work,
meld good judgement into law and, finally, enforce that law. The designer ensures safety while the
regulator assures safety.
First, the site is approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission according to criteria that include
distances to the public, access, power, water, and security. Next, following a review of the design and a
preliminary safety assessment, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will issue a construction permit.
Then, after continuous review on the construction site to ensure things are built as the owner has
specified, and after receiving a final safety analysis report (a very large tome of upwards of a dozen 4″
binders), the NRC will issue a preliminary operational license. This allows the owner to do low-power
tests prior to operation. During these tests, the system will be filled and heated, and all instrumentation,
valves, controls, and shutdown mechanisms will be tested extensively. Finally, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, after reviewing the results of the tests, will issue the license to operate.
During operation, the licensing authorities follow operation with on-site inspectors and follow every
maintenance action. Changes to plant design or operation outside of the agreed specifications of the
license have to go through another NRC approval process.

Fabrication and Construction

As the design proceeds the safety of the plant is analyzed thoroughly to meet and better regulatory
protection standards. The analysis is presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Preliminary
Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and once that has been approved, the design is fixed. Then the owner can
proceed to fabrication and construction.
Since it takes many months to construct a nuclear plant approval to fabricate and construct may be
given in several steps depending on whether the item under consideration is safety-related or not. If it is
safety-related and appears as part of the PSAR submission, then it is kept under close regulatory scrutiny
during fabrication.
Fabrication will take place at a number of locations: the vessels being built by one firm and electronics
by another, and pumps and valves by others. However, all fabrication is performed to regulatory-
approved industry quality standards. Material integrity of the large components, for example, is tested
in several ways including radiographing and dye-penetrant methods; each governed by a standard. In
this way, the owner can be assured that every piece of the plant is of high quality. The chain of
construction will have no weak links.
Construction, by the project’s architect engineering firm, is performed also to industry standards for
such things as concrete mixes, rebar strength and density, welding techniques and so on. It is under
close regulatory scrutiny and there will be a resident Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector(s) on site
while the work goes on.

Low-Power Commissioning
After the plant design has been approved and the plant built, it must be tested before being placed into
operation. This is called low-power commissioning and it is a time to make corrections if anything proves
to be out of specifications.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will permit vessels and piping to be filled with liquids (generally
water), pumps can be operated and valves can be opened and closed. This is especially so for emergency
systems that, although never expected to be operated in the plant’s lifetime, must operate if called
upon. This is similar to the first fill of your newly installed replacement car engine with oil and the first
cranking of the pistons. Although you are not going to drive it a hundred-miles-an-hour today, you
would like to know that it all works and nothing leaks. If you installed a new car radiator, you would
need to know that all the connecting hoses are tight even before you started the car.
Naturally, the inspectors of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are involved throughout these low-
power commissioning tests. When the plant operators and the regulators are satisfied with all the tests
and that they agree with predictions (which go into the safety case), the plant may be granted a license
for full-power operation.

Full-Power Operation
Full-power operation is a natural extension of low-power commissioning. It is exactly like starting and
running your car when you buy it since you know that all the low-power commissioning tests have been
done.
Sometimes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may license the plant to come to power in a series of
steps: 25%, 50%. 90% and 100% of full power, but the effect is the same. The result is full-power
operation and the quiet generation of clean electricity for the plant lifetime of 30 to 40 years or more.

Other Items Contributing to Safety

Safety is a comprehensive state encompassing many things including good management, safe design,
industry standards, and positive regulation. Safety also includes well-trained staff and operators,
attention to emergency plans if anything went wrong, and, on another level, security.
Training
Training is vital to ensure that operators and other staff such as maintenance crews know exactly what
to do and why they are doing it that way. In addition, training ensures that everyone is trained to do the
job the same way.
Therefore, staff training at all levels is regular. Operators must go through yearly training (with exams)
and success in training is necessary for them to continue in their position. It would not be too strong to
say that good training of all staff, at all levels, is a basis for safe operation.
Emergency Plans
While it is very unlikely that anything will go seriously wrong, nevertheless emergency plans are set in
place to protect operators and anyone who might be in or in the vicinity of the plant. These emergency
plans involve close cooperation with off-site agencies like the police, the fire department, and even
school buses, if they are part of any evacuation plan that has been approved.
Security
Security is related to safety including and beyond plant operation. Therefore, security plans are
confidential and known only to those with a need to know: plant management, the police, certain
regulators, and anyone who needs to act.
One part of security is aimed at those misguided individuals who might feel a need to disrupt the
operation of the plant or who might want to prove that they could steal materials. It has never been
done, nevertheless security plans are made for each plant. They do not contribute directly to safety of
operation but they would stop anyone, like a terrorist, who might have harmful objectives.
Accidents
THREE MILE ISLAND
On March 28, 1979, TMI experienced the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant
operating history. However, this event led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the
nearby community. It brought about sweeping changes regarding many areas of nuclear power plant
operations – from emergency response planning to reactor operator training. It also caused the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight.
Today, the Three Mile Island nuclear plant (TMI) generates enough electricity to power a city the size of
Philadelphia. Its world class performance record demonstrates the exceptional focus and hard work of
the people who safely and efficiently run the plant.
CHERNOBYL
On April 26, 1986, an accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Kiev in the Ukrainian
Republic of the Former Soviet Union. With the release of radiation, human casualties, physical damage
to the plant and contamination of the surrounding environment, Chernobyl marked the worst accident
in the history of nuclear power production. It also demonstrated the importance of strong safety
culture, independent regulators, and well designed plants, reinforcing nuclear safety efforts for the
years to come.
According to the World Health Organization, the accident led to the fatalities of thirty-six workers. More
than 200,000 people in the Ukraine and Belarus Republics were evacuated and resettled as a result of
significant fallout from the Chernobyl accident. Land was contaminated in the Ukraine Republic, Belarus
Republic, Russia, Europe, and Scandinavia. Recovery efforts continue to be managed by the international
community.
The world nuclear community quickly determined that an accident similar to Chernobyl – 4 could not
happen in any other type of plant, due to higher design and operational standards outside the Soviet
Union. The remaining Chernobyl type reactors throughout the former Soviet bloc were modified for safe
operation. Some were shut down. Many are still in operation. Health and Environmental studies are still
going on, and will continue into the foreseeable future.
The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) to promote cooperation, was founded as a result
of this tragedy.
FUKUSHIMA
On March 11, 2011, one of the largest earthquakes in the recorded history of the world occurred on the
east coast of northern Japan. This earthquake also generated a major tsunami, causing nearly 20,000
deaths. Electricity, gas and water supplies, telecommunications, and railway service were all severely
disrupted and in many cases completely shut down. These disruptions severely affected the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing a loss of all on-site and off-site power and a release of radioactive
materials from the reactors.
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) commissioned the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima to provide
a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer
recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.
To view the full report please visit http://fukushima.ans.org/
DID YOU KNOW?
Scientific studies and measurements are clearly indicating that there is no public health hazard from
radioactivity originating from the accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in
March 2011.
“While nuclear professionals continue to monitor any potential dose consequences, any effect of
radioactivity coming across the Pacific to the United States coast would be negligible,” noted Dr.
Michaele Brady Raap, American Nuclear Society.
For more information, please review the article, Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents
neighboring restricted areas of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, published by the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
What Happened at Fukushima?

What Type of reactor(s) are at Fukushima?

The reactors at Fukushima were typical BWR-3 (Unit 1) and BWR-4 (Units 2 – 5) designs. Prior to the
accident Units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, Unit 4 was defueled, but not operating (planned
maintenance), and Units 5 and 6 fueled, but not operating (planned outage).

What lessons were learned from Fukushima?

 Earthquake design basis adequate
 Tsunami design basis and emergency planning insufficient for NPP and other key infrastructure
 Must diversify, increase and secure onsite power supply to avoid core damage
The following report presents the reflections of members of the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering
faculty on the accident at Fukushima, and is offered as a contribution to the debate on the implications
of the accident for the nuclear industry. In it they identify and discuss technical issues arising from the
accident; and they begin a review of how the lessons learned can be used to improve the safety of
current and future plants.
Buongiorno, J., Ballinger, R., Driscoll, M., Forget, B., Forsberg, C., Golay, M., Kazimi, M., Todreas, N.,
Yanch, J. (2011). Technical Lessons Learned from the Fukushima-Daichii Accident and Possible Corrective
Actions for the Nuclear Industry: An Initial Evaluation, MIT-NSP-TR-025. Center for Advanced Nuclear
Energy Systems. Retrieved from http://mitnse.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fukushima-lessons-learned-
mit-nsp-025_rev1.pdf

What are U.S. plants doing to prevent such an event at home?

In the three years since the event, which was caused by a catastrophic tsunami, the international
nuclear community has rallied together to make sure that help and resources were made available to
assist in evaluation, cleanup and radiation monitoring efforts. This effort has enabled the U.S. to
enhance safety systems across the U.S. fleet. One of the primary enhancements is the planning for long-
term loss of the diesel engines used at the plants.

How many people died at Fukushima?

 Number of residential buildings damaged or destroyed due to earthquake/tsunami: 475,000
 Number of people dead due to the earthquake/tsunami: > 20,000
 Number of km2 inundated by tsunami: 560 km2 (215 mi2, about the size of Chicago)
 Number of deaths due to tsunami at the nuclear power plant (NPP): 2
 Number of deaths due to radiation exposure: 0
 Number of cases of radiation sickness: 0
Sources: WNA Japanese Report to IAEA, June 2011

What has been done to prevent the spread of radioactive materials?

Sprayed dust inhibitor agents to mitigate spreading of powder dust containing radioactive materials.
Installed a reactor building cover on Unit 1.
Radiation dose at the site was held down due to rubble removal.
 The removed rubble and waste resulting from restoration work, such as cut down trees due to
site cleaning, were transported after they were classified by type and radiation emitting
amount at storage site.
 The rubble was placed in containers and stored indoors in accordance with the radiation
emitting amount.
PCV gas control systems were installed at Unit 1,2, and 3.
These strategies have ensured that radiation exposure from the event was minimized so that focus can
continue to be on cleanup of the site.
The TMI-2 Accident - In Brief
The TMI-2 Accident – In Brief
The TMI-2 Accident – In Brief
The TMI-2 accident involved a small leak of water from the reactor system that wasn’t correctly
diagnosed until after the reactor’s nuclear fuel core was severely damaged. Inadequate control room
instrumentation and emergency response training proved to be root causes of the operators’ inability to
respond properly to an unplanned automatic shutdown of the reactor at 4 A.M. on Wednesday, March
28, 1979.
 Within seconds of the shutdown, the power-operated relief valve on the reactor cooling system
opened, as it was supposed to. About 10 seconds later it should have closed, but it remained
open, leaking vital reactor coolant water to the reactor coolant water drain tank. The operators
believed the relief valve had shut because instruments showed them that a “close” signal was
sent to the valve. However, they did not have an instrument indicating the valve’s actual
position.
Pumps Come On, Are Shut Off
 Responding to the loss of water, high pressure injection pumps automatically pushed
replacement water into the reactor system. As water and steam escaped through the relief
valve, coolant water surged into the pressurizer, raising the water level in the pressurizer. (The
pressurizer is part of the reactor system. It is a tank that maintains proper reactor system
pressure. The relief valve is located on the pressurizer. In a pressurized water reactor like TMI-2,
water in the reactor coolant system is kept under high pressure to keep it from boiling.)
 Operators responded to the high pressurizer water level by reducing the flow of replacement
water. Their training told them that the pressurizer water level was the only dependable
indication of the amount of water in the system. Because the pressurizer level was increasing,
they thought the reactor system was too full of water. Their training told them to do all they
could to keep the pressurizer from filling with water. If it filled when the rest of the reactor
system was full of water, they could not control pressure in the reactor system and it might
rupture
Radioactive Releases Begin
 Steam formed in the reactor cooling system because of the loss of water through the open relief
valve and the lack of replacement water. Pumping a mixture of steam and water caused the
reactor coolant pumps to vibrate. Because the severe vibrations could have damaged the pumps
and made them unusable, operators shut down the pumps. This ended forced cooling of the
reactor. (The operators still believed the system was nearly full of water because the pressurizer
level remained high.) However, as reactor coolant water boiled away, the reactor’s fuel core was
uncovered and became even hotter. The fuel rods were damaged and released radioactive
material into the reactor coolant water.
 At 6:22 A.M. operators closed a block valve between the relief valve and the pressurizer. This
action stopped the loss of water through the relief valve. However, superheated steam and
gases blocked the flow of water within the reactor coolant system. Throughout the morning,
operators attempted to force more water into the reactor system to condense steam bubbles
that they believed were blocking the flow of cooling water.During the afternoon, operators
attempted to decrease the pressure in the reactor coolant system to allow a low pressure
cooling water system to be used and emergency water supplies to be put into the reactor
system.
Cooling Restored
 By late afternoon, operators began high pressure injection of water into the reactor cooling
system to increase pressure and to collapse steam bubbles. By 7:50 P.M., they restored forced
 cooling of the reactor when they were able to restart one reactor coolant pump. They had
condensed steam so that the pump could run without severe vibrations.Radioactive gases from
the reactor system built up in the makeup tank in the auxiliary building. During March 29 and
30, operators used a system of pipes and compressors to move the gas to waste gas decay
tanks. The compressors leaked. Some radioactive gas was released to the environment.
Hydrogen Bubble Restored
 When the reactor’s core was uncovered on the morning of March 28, a high-temperature
chemical reaction between water and the metal tubes holding the nuclear fuel pellets had
created hydrogen gas, some of which entered the containment. In the afternoon of March 28, a
sudden rise in containment pressure shown by the control room instruments indicated a
hydrogen burn had occurred. Hydrogen gas also gathered at the top of the reactor vessel. From
March 30 through April 1, operators removed this hydrogen gas “bubble” by periodically
opening the vent valve on the reactor cooling system pressurizer. For a time, some U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials believed the hydrogen bubble could explode. However, such an
explosion was never possible. There was not enough gaseous oxygen in the system for an
explosive mixture to exist.
Cold Shutdown
 On April 27, operators established “natural” (convection) circulation of coolant water. The
reactor core was being cooled by the natural movement of water rather than by mechanical
pumping. The plant was in “cold shutdown.”
TMI-2 Accident: What Happened and What Didn't
TMI-2 Accident: What Happened and What Didn’t
TMI-2 Accident: What Happened and What Didn’t
What Happened
 On March 28, 1979, the reactor’s fuel core at Three Mile Island #2 became uncovered because
the reactor coolant water level dropped below the top of the fuel core and more than one-third
of the fuel melted.
 Inadequate instrumentation and training programs at the time hampered operators’ ability to
respond to the accident.
 The accident was accompanied by communications problems that led to conflicting information
available to the public, contributing to the public’s fears.
 A very small amount of radiation was released from the plant. The releases were not serious and
were not health hazards. This was confirmed by thousands of environmental and other samples
and measurements taken during and after the accident.
 The safety provisions designed into the reactor system worked. The containment building
contained the radioactive material as designed. Despite melting of about one-third of the fuel,
the reactor vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel.
 The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and
no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray,
and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S.
residents in a year.
What did not Happen
 There was no “China Syndrome,” the supposed scenario in which a nuclear plant accident
creates a mass of molten reactor fuel so hot that it burns though a steel reactor vessel, through
the plant’s reinforced concrete foundation, into the Earth and exits through the opposite side of
the planet.
 There were no injuries or detectable health impacts from the accident beyond the initial stress.
Long-Term Impacts
  Several health studies found there were no long-term adverse effects on the health of the
population living around TMI.
 Applying the accident’s lessons produced important, continuing improvement in the
performance of all nuclear power plants worldwide, emergency response preparations, and
communication with the public.
 The accident also fostered better understanding of fuel melting, including improbability of a
“China Syndrome” meltdown breaching the reactor vessel or the containment building.
The TMI-2 Cleanup: Challenging and Successful
The TMI-2 Cleanup: Challenging and Successful
The TMI-2 Cleanup: Challenging and Successful
The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at Three Mile Island Unit 2 took nearly 12 years and
cost approximately $973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically.
Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated. Water used and stored during the cleanup had to be
processed. About 100 tons of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel — all
without hazard to cleanup workers or the public.
After the March 28, 1979 event, a cleanup plan was developed and carried out safely and successfully by
a team of more than 1,000 skilled workers.
The cleanup of the Unit 2 plant began in August 1979 with the first shipments of accident-generated
low-level radiological waste to Richland, Wa. In the cleanup’s closing phases in 1991, final
measurements were taken of the fuel remaining in inaccessible parts of the reactor vessel.
Approximately one percent of the fuel and debris remains in the vessel. Also in 1991, the last remaining
water was pumped from the TMI-2 reactor. The cleanup ended in December, 1993, when Unit 2
received a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enter Post Defueling Monitored Storage
(PDMS).
Early in the cleanup, Unit 2 was completely severed from TMI Unit 1. TMI-2 today is in long-term
monitored storage. No further use of the plant is anticipated. Ventilation and rainwater systems are
monitored. Equipment necessary to keep the plant in safe long-term storage is maintained.
Removing the fuel from the TMI-2 reactor vessel was the heart of the cleanup. The damaged fuel
remained underwater throughout the removal process. In October 1985 after nearly six years of
preparations, workers standing on a platform atop the reactor and manipulating long-handled tools
began lifting the fuel into canisters that hung beneath the platform. In all, 342 fuel canisters were
shipped safely for long-term storage at the Idaho National Laboratory, a program that was completed in
April 1990.
TMI-2 cleanup operations produced more than 2.8 million gallons of cleanup-generated water that was
processed, stored and ultimately evaporated safely from Unit 2. Evaporation began in January 1991 and
was completed in August 1993.
In February 1991, the TMI-2 Cleanup Program was named by the National Society of Professional
Engineers as one of the top engineering achievements in the United States completed during 1990.
No Radiological Health Effects at TMI
No Radiological Health Effects at TMI
No Radiological Health Effects at TMI
The Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident on March 28, 1979 caused concerns about the possibility of
radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those
concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained for 18 years a registry of more than
30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state’s
registry was discontinued in June 1997 without any evidence of unusual health trends.
Indeed, more than a dozen major, independent health studies of the accident showed no evidence of
any abnormal number of cancers around TMI years after the accident. The only detectable effect was
psychological stress during and shortly after the accident.
The studies found that the radiation releases during the accident were minimal, well below any levels
that have been associated with health effects from radiation exposure. The average radiation dose to
people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, with no more than 100 millirem to any
single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the
average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year.
In June, 1996, 17 years after the TMI-2 accident, Harrisburg U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo
dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that the accident caused health effects.
The plaintiffs have appealed Judge Rambo’s ruling. The appeal is before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. In making her decision, Judge Rambo cited:
 The Maureen Hatch study for the TMI Public Health Fund found that exposure patterns
projected by computer models of the releases compared so well with data from the TMI
dosimeters (radiation measurement devices worn by TMI employees) available during the
accident that the dosimeters probably were adequate to measure the releases.
 That the maximum offsite dose was possibly 100 millirem and that projected fatal cancers were
less than one.
 The plaintiffs’ failure to prove their assertion that one or more unreported hydrogen “blowouts”
in the reactor system caused one or more unreported radiation “spikes”, producing a narrow,
yet highly concentrated plume of radioactive gases.
Judge Rambo concluded: “The parties to the instant action have had nearly two decades to muster
evidence in support of their respective cases…. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs’ case
is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most
favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a
jury. This effort has been in vain.”
Health Studies Find No Cancer Link to TMI
Health Studies Find No Cancer Link to TMI
Health Studies Find No Cancer Link to TMI
More than a dozen major, independent studies have assessed the radiation releases and possible effects
on the people and the environment near TMI since the 1979 accident at TMI-2.
The findings of the most recent studies:
Hatch-Susser Study (Columbia University)
Largely in response to citizens’ concerns, the Three Mile Island Public Health Fund asked Maureen C.
Hatch of the Division of Epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health, New York City, and
three associates – Jan Beyea, Jeri Nieves and Mervyn Susser – to study the pattern of accident releases
to determine if they had any correlation with cancer incidence around TMI.
The Hatch-Susser team designed and carried out an elaborate study that was based on mathematical
modeling of where the TMI-2 releases traveled and thousands of records of patients from 19 hospitals in
the TMI area.
First, they had to consider whether the releases were accurately known. Despite variations in the
estimate of what was released, Hatch-Susser found that “in every instance, the level of exposure was
deemed to be very low” – an average of approximately 10 millirems and a projected maximum dose of
100 millirems.
In the September 1990 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the Hatch-Susser team reported
that “the prior expectation based on estimated releases and conventional radiobiology – that no excess
cancer would be found – was confirmed in most if not all respects.”
National Cancer Institute Study
At the request of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study of cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear
power plants, including TMI, and nine U.S. Department of Energy facilities. The NCI study compared the
counties containing nuclear facilities with control counties in the same region.
Released in September 1990, the NCI study “concludes that the survey has produced no evidence that
an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities.” At Senator Kennedy’s
request, the study looked closely at TMI and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, Mass.
Pennsylvania Department of Health Studies
The Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained a registry of close to 35,000 persons who lived
within five miles of TMI during the TMI-2 accident. This “close-in” data base was augmented by other
statistical records available to the department.
The Department of Health found:
 Through 1993, there was no significant rise in cancer incidence rates among the residents in the
TMI registry.
 Seven cases of congenital hypothyroidism in Lancaster County, outside the 10-mile radius of
TMI, “were not related to the TMI nuclear accident.” (1981)
 No significant differences were found in infant mortality rates within the 10-mile radius of TMI.
There was a significant incidence of low birth weights in babies of mothers who were pregnant
during the accident and who took excessive medication to counter stress. A five-year follow-up
showed that the children had regained normal weight. (1984)
Results from Other Studies
The following is a brief listing of other independent studies, most conducted by state and federal
agencies, following the TMI-2 accident.
Population Exposure and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 1973 –
The study was conducted by experts known as the Ad Hoc Population Dose Assessment Group from the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Its conclusion was that there were no immediate health effects, and
that latent or long-term effects, if any, would be minimal.
Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, 1979 – The study was done
by a commission appointed by President Jimmy Carter and chaired by John G. Kemeny, then President of
Dartmouth College. Its conclusion on health effects was that there would be no detectable cancers or
genetically related instances of ill-health from the accident. The report said the most important health
effect of the accident was mental stress experienced by the general population and the workers.
Three Mile Island: A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public, 1980 – The report, commissioned
by the NRC, was done by a Washington, D.C., law firm, Rogovin, Stern & Huge. It concluded that health
effects on the population as a whole, if they existed at all, would be nonmeasurable and nondetectable.
Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission’s Determination
of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence, 1980 – The report was published by the NRC and based on
work by representatives of the NRC, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, the former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and U.S. Department
of Energy. It confirmed the population dose estimates of the Ad Hoc Population Dose Assessment
Group, the report of the President’s Commission and the report commissioned by Metropolitan Edison.
Investigations of Reported Plant and Animal Health Effects in the Three Mile Island Area, 1980 – The
report was published by the NRC and based on the findings of investigators of the NRC, Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Argonne National Laboratory. It
concluded that “it appears that none of the reported plant and animal health effects (reviewed in the
report) can be directly attributed to the operation of or the accident” at TMI.
Follow-up Studies on Biological and Health Effects Resulting from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power
Plant Accident of March 28, 1979 – This study was done by the Committee on Federal Research into the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and published by the National Institute of Health. The
committee’s TMI Follow-up Research Subcommittee was made up of representatives from the National
Institutes of Health; Food and Drug Administration; Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health
Administration; Communicable Disease Center; Environmental Protection Agency; Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; Department of Energy, and Department of Defense. The study concluded that the accident
would produce no detectable health effects.
Report of the Governor’s Commission on Three Mile Island, 1980 – The report was done by a
commission established by Gov. Richard Thornburgh. It agreed with the findings of the President’s
Commission that accident health effects would be negligible and found that the mental stress from the
accident would be transient for the general population.
Impact of TMI Nuclear Accident Upon Pregnancy Outcome, Congenital Hypothyroidism and Mortality,
1981 – The study was done by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. It concluded that pregnant
women exposed to accident releases showed no measurable differences for prematurity, congenital
abnormalities, neonatal deaths or any other factors examined. The “TMI Mother-Child Registry”
established for the study continues to be monitored by the PA Health Department. Reports are issued at
five-year intervals. The Health Department also found no increase in infant hypothyroidism as a result of
exposure from radioactive iodine. Seven cases of congenital hypothyroidism in Lancaster County outside
the 10 mile radius of the investigation also were found to be unrelated to the accident. The finding was
supported by an independent Hypothyroidism Investigation Committee organized by the Health
Department.
Cancer Mortality and Morbidity around TMI, 1985 – The study was done by the Pennsylvania
Department of Health and is being followed up by the Department. It found no increased cancer risks to
residences near TMI.
Assessment of Off-Site Radiation Doses from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident, 1979 – The report,
commissioned by Metropolitan Edison, was done by Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., a Washington, D.C.
consulting firm. Its findings on doses from the accident were generally consistent with those studies that
concluded that radiation releases from the accident were too small to cause detectable health effects
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions – Three Mile Island Accident
What actually happened and why?
The reactor’s fuel core became uncovered because coolant water dropped below the top of the fuel
core and more than one-third of the fuel melted. Inadequate instrumentation and training programs at
the time hampered operators’ ability to respond to the accident. The accident was accompanied by
communications problems that led to conflicting information available to the public, contributing to the
public’s fears.
The safety provisions designed into the reactor system worked. The containment building contained the
reactor fuel as designed. And despite melting of about one-third of the fuel, the reactor vessel itself
maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel.
How many people died and how many people are likely to develop cancer as a result of the accident
at Three Mile Island?
No one died as a result of the TMI-2 accident. The accident caused concerns about the possibility of
radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those
concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained for 18 years a registry of more than
30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state’s
registry was discontinued in June 1997 without any evidence of unusual health trends.
What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such a nuclear accident?
The accident led to the formation of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations by the owners of all
operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. as a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the
operation of all nuclear plants in the U.S. INPO, headquartered in Atlanta, sets standards for safe
nuclear power operations and leads annual inspections of all plants.
INPO also formed the National Academy for Nuclear Training which sets standards for the training and
certification of nuclear plant operations and maintenance workers.
INPO has been so successful that its model was replicated globally in the formation of the World
Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), headquartered in London, which sets standards of
performance for all 400-plus nuclear plants worldwide.
Why do we still have nuclear plants in operation today? Why don’t we just close down all nuclear
power plants?
Nuclear power plants in the U.S. produce about 20 percent of the electric power used today and at the
lowest costs without emitting any air pollutants. We need their clean, low-cost power to maintain our
national economy and today’s quality of life
What is the environmental and health value of nuclear energy today?
Today’s 103 operating nuclear plants within the U.S. have tremendous environmental and health value.
Nuclear is the only way to generate large volumes of electric power consistently at low cost without
polluting the air. While we need all the renewable energy we can get, solar and windmills cannot
produce power on a large scale to meet our economy’s needs. Fossil plants, such as coal- and natural
gas-fired, in most instances cost more and produce air pollutants, including carbon dioxide. Natural gas
is fuel source that is becoming scarce within the lower 48 states of North America.
Isn’t spent nuclear fuel, which remains dangerous for thousands of years, a huge problem we are
leaving to our future generations?
Actually, used nuclear fuel is quite manageable. All the used fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear power
industry in 40 years of operation – about 40,000 metric tons – would, if stacked end to end, cover an
area the size of a football field about five yards deep.
Since their first day of operation, all U.S. nuclear plants have been paying one tenth of a cent per
kilowatt-hour generated into the U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for permanent storage of all used fuel.
Nuclear plants have so far paid in about $20 billion and, because of those payments, are the only
industry in America that has paid the cost of disposing of its waste.
The Department of Energy, after 20 years of study, has chosen Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the permanent
disposal site for all nuclear waste. DOE is now preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for a license to build and operate the facility. Although court challenges are still under way,
DOE is scheduled to begin receiving used fuel in 2010. Other nations do not have a used fuel disposal
problem because they reprocess their used fuel, reclaiming the approximately 97% of the fuel which is
unburned for new fuel rods.
Didn’t we come close to having a China Syndrome on our hands at TMI-2?
The accident actually showed there is no such danger as described in the 1979 movie, China Syndrome.
TMI-2 also fostered a better understanding of what happens when fuel melts, and demonstrated the
improbability of a “China Syndrome” meltdown breaching the reactor vessel or the containment
building. About a third of the TMI-2 fuel did melt and the containment building did its job of containing
it. There was no meltdown like a China syndrome.
How much radiation did people living around TMI-2 get?
The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more
than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100
millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a
year.
What were the long-term health impacts of the TMI-2 accident?
Several health studies found there was no long-term adverse effect on the health of the population
living around TMI. Applying the accident’s lessons produced important, continuing improvement in the
performance of all nuclear power plants worldwide.
Why don’t we design some new types of nuclear plants that are more advanced?
Actually, we are designing new plants. The next generation of nuclear plants has already been designed
to be safer, as well as cheaper to build and operate. In fact 32 new plants are being built around the
world but none are located in the U.S. Many scientists fear that the U.S. is falling behind in advanced
nuclear power technology, which could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas.
There is also an even more advanced nuclear reactor, called a high temperature gas-cooled reactor, that
would be meltdown proof and terrorist hardened because it could be built underground. It would be
cooled by a gas, rather than with water like today’s light water reactors. The gas could be helium, an
inert element that does not become radioactive. Thus if it escaped through a leak, it would just be like
the helium in a balloon. Such advanced reactors, like today’s reactors, would not emit air pollutants.
Further, the high temperature reactors would operate at a high enough temperature, they could
thermo-split water into hydrogen and oxygen, making large volumes of hydrogen at low cost without
release any air emissions. They could be the source of low-cost hydrogen to fuel a hydrogen economy.
Such advanced reactors would run on nuclear fuel with no ties to foreign oil or gas, increasing our
energy independence.
Chernobyl in Brief
Chernobyl in Brief
Chernobyl in Brief
In April 1986 a terrible accident occurred at the Number 4 Chernobyl Plant in Ukraine, formerly within
the Soviet Union. It was caused by six different operator errors in a risky design. Two of the errors were
the use of “cutout switches” in safety shutdown circuits. Unlike nuclear reactors in the United States,
Soviet plants had this feature, which was created in naval equipment before the use of nuclear power.
The accident released a cloud of radioactive particles and gases that created measurable increases in
doses in the Northern Hemisphere. Doses were highest in European countries, but far below anything
immediately harmful. The lack of clear information and different standards in each country created
panic in Europe. Many livestock were needlessly destroyed and food wasted, while exposed food was
consumed in Soviet republics.
Health effects and fallout distribution have been studied continuously since the accident, as they have
been for atomic bomb survivors, and others who have received large doses. The latest results show that
the most important effect has been psychological, while physical effects are much less severe than
originally estimated. This is to be expected, since calculations and judgments about radiation and
nuclear matters always have large safety factors, to make sure any error is in the direction of safety.
After the accident, the community of nations forced the Soviet government to “tell all.” International
evaluation showed that the accident was impossible in any other type of commercial reactor.
Additionally, it showed that the design did not have safety systems adequate for that type of reactor.
The Chernobyl type reactor was designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and to generate
electricity at the same time, and used graphite (similar to charcoal). A more prevalent practice is to have
separate reactors for power and weapons material. The Chernobyl type reactors that continued in
operation were modified to prevent a repetition of the accident.
The operators were attempting to repeat an “engineering run” to get data on the whole plant’s
performance during shutdown. Because they were repeating the engineering run, overconfidence and
schedule change pressures led to the operator errors. The accident began with a nuclear power burst
about equal to 160 pounds of TNT. This caused a chemical reaction with the graphite, resulting in a
much larger explosion. The reactor vessel lid was blown aside; a hole was blown in the roof, and pieces
of core and fuel material blown on to the roof. The graphite was set on fire, and the reactor was burning
down and melting down at the same time.
The Soviets did not tell the world until after increasing atmospheric radiation in other countries led to
questions. Control and containment efforts killed more than 36 people from direct radiation exposure.
Reacting to the delay, the government appears to have quarantined an area that was excessive, when
compared to the natural radioactive exposure to people and their food chain in some of the world’s hot
spots. Ultra conservative studies project large numbers of early fatalities, but these are only after
decades, if they occur at all.
Howard Shaffer
Revision 5, December 27, 2005
Reference: Nuclear News Special Report. September 11, 1986 “Chernobyl: The Soviet Report.” Reports
on the August 25-29 IAEA Conference on this accident. Nuclear News is the monthly magazine of the
American Nuclear Society.
UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly.
What Happened - In Detail
What Happened – In Detail
What Happened – In Detail
The accident was covered in two ANS reports in 1986. The reports contain much information of value to
the public, as well as technical discussions about the nuclear reactor physics involved. The reports have
been publicly available. Plain language discussions of the nuclear reactor physics are elsewhere. The
reports contain photos, drawings and graphs.
The first report in June, describes the initial Soviet and International reaction, including evacuations,
radioactive fallout and comparisons of the Chernobyl type reactor to other similar reactors. The
comparisons were made to insure that other reactors could not have a similar accident.
The second report in September, describes the Special International Meeting at the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) where the Soviet experts provided complete details of the plant design and what
went wrong. The discussion reveals that the design was somewhat risky, but the accident was caused by
Operator errors. Table 1 lists six errors, and the Soviets stated that if any one of the first five errors had
not been made the accident would not have happened. The report also reveals the Operators were
attempting to repeat an “engineering run” that had been done twice before, to get data on an improved
voltage regulator for the main generators. The term “experiment” which may give the wrong impression
to some people, has been used in some descriptions.
Health Studies of Radiological Impact
Health Studies of Radiological Impact
Health Studies of Radiological Impact
Studies of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident have been ongoing since the event. These studies
confirm the scientific basis for our regulation and use of radiation and radioactive materials. These
studies also suggest that very low radiation exposures do not appear to be harmful.
UNSCEAR 2011 Report
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) issued in 2011
the most recent and most authoritative comprehensive review of radiation-related health effects of the
Chernobyl accident. Decades of research on Chernobyl health effects are also summarized by the
UNSCEAR secretariat. The General Conclusions of the report:
“The observed health effects currently attributable to radiation exposure [from the Chernobyl accident]
are as follows:
 134 plant staff and emergency workers received high doses of radiation that resulted in acute
radiation syndrome (ARS), many of whom also incurred skin injuries due to beta irradiation;
 The high radiation doses proved fatal for 28 of these people;
  While 19 ARS survivors have died up to 2006, their deaths have been for various reasons, and
usually not associated with radiation exposure;
 Skin injuries and radiation-induced cataracts are major impacts for the ARS survivors;
 Other than this group of emergency workers, several hundred thousand people were involved in
recovery operations, but to date, apart from indications of an increase in the incidence of
leukemia and cataracts among those who received higher doses, there is no evidence of health
effects that can be attributed to radiation exposure;
 The contamination of milk with I-131, for which prompt countermeasures were lacking, resulted
in large doses to the thyroids of members of the general public [in Belarus, Ukraine,and Russia];
this led to a substantial fraction of the more than 6,000 thyroid cancers observed to date among
people who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident (by 2005, 15 cases had
proved fatal);
 To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general
population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.”
The UNSCEAR report goes on to explain: “From this annex based on 20 years of studies and from the
previous UNSCEAR reports, it can be concluded that although those exposed to radioiodine as children
or adolescents and the emergency and recovery operation workers who received high doses are at
increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population [of the regions most
affected by the Chernobyl accident] need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the
Chernobyl accident. Most of the workers and members of the public were exposed to low level radiation
comparable to or, at most, a few times higher than the annual natural background levels, and exposures
will continue to decrease as the deposited radionuclides decay or are further dispersed in the
environment [the radiation dose a patient typically receives from one whole body computer
tomography (CT) scan is approximately equivalent to the total dose accumulated in 20 years by
residents outside the “strictly controlled zones” of the Chernobyl affected regions following the
Chernobyl accident]. Although it is now one decade after the minimum latent period for solid cancers,
no increases in cancer incidence (other than of thyroid cancer) have been observed to date that can be
attributed to irradiation from the accident.”
The UNSCEAR secretariat summarizes as follows: “Apart from this increase [in thyroid cancers detected
and treated among the affected populations of the region], there is no evidence of a major public health
impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence
of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that
could be related to radiation exposure.”
The UNSCEAR report also notes: “There is no likelihood of a radiation-related decrease in male or female
fertility in the general population, given the relatively low dose levels, which are also unlikely to have
any effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery complications, or the
overall health of children. No discernable increase in hereditary effects is expected.”
Theoretical Projections
The final report from the Chernobyl Forum in 2005, a United Nations multi-agency effort to arrive at
consensus on scientific findings regarding the Chernobyl accident, addressed theoretical predictions of
cancer mortality from the Chernobyl accident as follows:
“It is impossible to assess reliably, with any precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused by radiation
exposure due to the Chernobyl accident. Small differences in the assumptions concerning radiation risks
can lead to large differences in the predicted health consequences, which are therefore highly uncertain.
An international expert group has made projections to provide a rough estimate of the possible health
impacts of the accident. The projections indicate that, among the most exposed populations
(liquidators, evacuees and residents of the so-called “strict control zones”), total cancer mortality might
increase by up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure. Such an increase could
mean eventually up to several thousand fatal cancers. An increase of this magnitude would be very
difficult to detect.” Also see World Health Organization fact sheet for an overview of some similar
estimates.
Estimates such as these are based largely on a “Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis” – the assumption that
radiation risk is proportional to radiation dose at all levels, including very low levels. This hypothesis
serves as the cornerstone for radiation exposure protection limits worldwide, since it predicts higher
risks than most other models, and thus leads to relatively cautious and conservative radiation exposure
guidelines.
However, it is the position of the American Nuclear Society, and many other professional scientific
societies and organizations, that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of the Linear
No-Threshold Hypothesis in the projection of health effects of chronic low-level radiation. The
intervening scientific evidence concerning Chernobyl radiation exposure to date appears to support this
position. Many other scientific studies also lend support to rejecting the Linear No-Threshold
Hypothesis. This evidence includes studies of populations living in areas with naturally much higher
background radiation rates that show no adverse health effects when compared to lower-dose
populations, and animal studies which suggest harmful effects when natural background radiation is
suppressed. See ANS Technical Brief for more details.
UNSCEAR in its authoritative 2011 report notes: “Any radiation risk projections in the low dose area
should be considered as extremely uncertain, especially when the projection of numbers of cancer
deaths is based on trivial individual exposures to large populations experienced over many years.”
Further scientific progress may someday provide a scientific basis for evaluating the radiation health
consequences of the Chernobyl accident among residents of areas with low radiation levels.
The most recent international conference attempting to reach international scientific consensus
concerning health effects from the Chernobyl accident was held in Kiev in April 2011. The conference
was not successful in reaching consensus, and no formal conclusions were issued, due to differences in
scientific judgment.
Conclusion
The Chernobyl accident was a human tragedy with significant public health effects. However, these
health effects were largely non-radiological. Overall, the most tragic and important health effect has
been psychological – a sense of fatalism caused by bad information. As stated by the Chernobyl Forum
final report: “misconceptions and myths about the threat of radiation persist, promoting a paralyzing
fatalism among residents.”
Chernobyl Myths
Chernobyl Myths
Chernobyl Myths
By Paul Lorenzini
Published by the American Spectator on 1/23/2006 (reprinted with permission)
Nobody likes to be “had,” but that is precisely what has happened to the American public with the
documentary Chernobyl Heart. Since winning the Academy Award for “Best Short Documentary” in
February 2003, it has received international accolades, has been uncritically quoted in major
newspapers, and is being recommended for America’s classrooms on the National Education
Association’s website. HBO has run it continuously since September 2004. Yet while presented as a
documentary on the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, it relies to a shocking extent
on scientifically unsupportable claims and in some cases outright falsehoods.
Produced in 2002 by Maryann De Leo, it features the work of the Chernobyl Children’s Project, a New
York-based charity providing aid to those in areas affected by the Chernobyl accident. It is a well-
produced, heart-wrenching film with pictures so graphic it is hard to watch: a child with its brain growing
outside its head, another with a kidney tumor so large the child cannot be moved, it goes on and on. De
Leo later told an interviewer it was the hardest film she ever had to make. Yet without a scientific basis
for linking these horrifying scenes to Chernobyl, the documentary harms the very people it is claiming to
help.
According to findings of the Chernobyl Forum, released in April 2005, misinformation has been the most
significant problem for people affected by the accident. A group of more than 100 scientists
representing eight United Nations agencies and the governments of Belarus, Ukraine, and the
Federation of Russia, the Forum found that most predictions about the accident have been exaggerated.
While many had forecast tens and hundreds of thousands of fatalities, it reports a better estimate from
among the population of emergency workers and those in the most contaminated areas is around 4,000.
The most noticeable effect has been an increase in thyroid cancers among children, with survival rates
fortunately greater than 98%. Otherwise, group concludes, there have been no detectable effects of the
accident among the general population: no increase in infant mortality, no increase in birth defects, no
increase in cancers, and no effects on immune system function that could be linked to radiation from
Chernobyl.
The Chernobyl Forum’s greater concerns, however, relate to the impacts on the population caused by
distorted reporting. Pointedly it concludes: “the mental health impact of Chernobyl is largest public
health problem unleashed by the accident to date.” Because of the steady flow of misinformation,
“misconceptions and myths about the threat of radiation persist, promoting a paralyzing fatalism among
residents.” The result has been heightened anxiety, increased suicides, and an “exaggerated sense of
the dangers to health of exposure to radiation,” all coupled with a tendency to associate every observed
health effect with Chernobyl. Chernobyl Heart only reinforces this false sense of despair. As it opens the
moderator points toward the remains of the plant: “…that building,” she intones, “has caused the
destruction of nine million lives, half of which are children…the children know themselves they have no
hope.”
No hope? Even the title is bogus. The condition “Chernobyl Heart” is claimed by the film to be a defect in
the heart caused by radiation from the accident, yet there is no reference to a condition known as
“Chernobyl Heart” in any major study of the consequences of Chernobyl. When I posed a question about
this to Dr. Fred Mettler, who chaired the Chernobyl Forum’s Expert Group on Health, he told me: “The
issue of cardiac defects does not appear as a radiation related effect in either human or animal data I am
aware of over the last century.” He added, “none of the three governments presented any such data as
being Chernobyl related.” As he observed, they are simply taking spontaneous birth defects and
improperly attributing them to Chernobyl.
But that is only the beginning. One graphic claims: “infant mortality is 300% higher in Belarus than the
rest of Europe.” True, but it was true before the accident as well. More importantly, rates have been
declining since the accident in both contaminated and non-contaminated areas. The problem here is not
Chernobyl but differences in health care, diet and lifestyles. Another states: “birth defects have
increased 250% since the Chernobyl accident.” This is flatly contradicted by the Chernobyl Forum’s
Expert Group on Health which concurred with earlier reports that “so far, no increase in birth defects,
congenital malformations, stillbirths, or premature births could be linked to radiation exposures caused
by (Chernobyl).” As with heart defects, the repeated pictures of horribly deformed children involve
conditions which would have occurred with or without the accident.
Not satisfied with exaggerating health effects, the documentary seeks to add impact by misrepresenting
the accident itself. We are told, for example, that only 3 percent of the “full potential” was released
during the accident. This “very scary thought” is said to mean that 97 percent of the “full potential”
remains and “the next Chernobyl will be Chernobyl itself.” While it is true that only about 3.5 percent of
the fuel materials were released, these were not the main sources of radioactivity inside the reactor.
Considering actual releases and radioactive decay since the accident, a closer estimate is that 1-5
percent of the original radioactivity remains. And those materials are the most stable, which is why two
explosions and a fire lasting ten days left them behind.
Perhaps the most dramatic graphic states: “The people of Chernobyl were exposed to 90 times greater
radiation than that from the explosion of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.” This somewhat startling claim
is also false. In fact, there were some 20,000 human casualties from radiation exposures at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki within the first two to four months due to radiation exposures, compared with 28 during a
similar period at Chernobyl. The claim arises from a comparison of radioactive fallout between the two
events, but fallout was not the primary source of radiation exposure at Hiroshima. The primary source
was the direct burst of gamma and neutron radiation from fissioning within the bomb itself. It is both
callous and irresponsible to even suggest the two events are comparable.
Chernobyl was a terrible accident, but no one is served by misrepresenting its consequences.
Documentaries distorting the truth pose a more serious problem because they have a stamp of
authority and are trusted. Here that trust was betrayed, not just by the Chernobyl Children’s Project
releasing a documentary with mangled facts, but also by Hollywood granting it an Academy Award with
no apparent effort to check them. The Chernobyl Children’s Project should be given credit for its
charitable work, but its documentary should be criticized rather than applauded. Certainly HBO should
pull it from the air, and the National Education Association should discourage its use as an educational
aid for the children of America.
Paul Lorenzini is a nuclear engineer and former general manager of operations at the Department of
Energy’s nuclear facilities in Hanford, Washington.
What happened at Fukushima?
What happened at Fukushima?
On Friday, March 11, 2011, one of the largest earthquakes in the recorded history of the world occurred
on the east coast of northern Japan. This earthquake also generated a major tsunami, causing more than
15,000 deaths. Electricity, gas and water supplies, telecommunications, and railway service were all
severely disrupted and, in many cases, completely shut down. These disruptions severely affected the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing a loss of all on-site and off-site power and a release of
radioactive materials from the reactors.
After the earthquake, Units 1, 2, and 3 shutdown automatically (SCRAM), per design. The power
generators “tripped”. Movement of the plant’s foundation “exceeded design basis earthquake ground
motion” (DBEGM) in Units 2,3, and 5. This disabled offsite power systems, but no serious damage to
onsite safety systems.
After the loss of power, heat generation due to fission of uranium stops with SCRAM, but heat
generation due to radio-active decay of fission products continues. Power was needed to pump water to
cool the core, so emergency diesel generators provided power to the Emergency Core Cooling Systems
(ECCS). After the earthquake, the reactors were isolated and stable.
About 40 minutes after the quake, a tsunami hit the plant. The design basis for tsunami height was 5.7
m (17.1 ft), but the actual maximum tsunami height was 15 m (45 ft). Since the seawater pumps were
submerged by the tsunami, the residual heat removal systems (which releases the residual heat inside
the reactor to the seawater) and the auxiliary cooling system (which releases the heat of equipment to
the seawater), lost their functions.
As a result of the tsunami, all AC power was lost for Units 1 -5, and unit 6 retained one operating
generator. The Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC), followed by High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
system, were operated manually and/or with power from back-up batteries. When the back-up batteries
failed, the pressure of the containment structures began rising rapidly, due to the decay heat producing
steam in reactor pressure vessel. Steam relief valves were opened to relieve pressure, but the steam
had already discharged into wet well. This caused a decrease in coolant level in the reactor pressure
vessel.
The containment pressure began to rise, to around 130 psi, due to a build-up of hydrogen, nitrogen and
water vapor. It was only designed for 73 psi. Both Units 1 and 3 produced a hydrogen gas explosion, and
the steel frame roofs were destroyed. The concrete building surrounding the units remained intact,
while seawater was injected to cool the reactors.
Energy Mix
The 100 reactors in the United State produce approximately 20% of the nation’s electricity. The
Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will increase 25% by 2030. That means the
U.S. will need about 35 new nuclear power plants to maintain nuclear energy’s current 20% share of
generation.
As the global need for clean energy grows, nuclear power is the only energy source with near-zero
carbon emissions that has been proven capable of reliably and sustainably delivering the energy needed
by our industrial society.
Increasing nuclear power’s share in the national energy mix will improve air quality, reduce dependence
on foreign oil, decrease volatility in electricity prices and save hydrocarbons for other uses.

Sustainable Development
Energy for a Sustainable Future

Sustainable development will require a long-term sustainable source of energy, but continued
dependence on fossil fuels is not likely to be sustainable over the next century, with regard to both fuel
supply and environmental impact.
Replacement of fossil fuels might be achieved by development of a system in which hydrogen
technology helps solve problems of energy storage, distribution, and end-use applications. However,
such an energy economy must have a primary energy source, and the hydrogen infrastructure will take
time to develop.
Nuclear power is most economical when it is run at a constant rate. It is not well suited for meeting
peak-load demands, but would be well suited for supplying the primary energy source for a hydrogen
economy. Larger overall demand would permit the reduced unit cost associated with larger base-load
capacity.
The Future
In the long term, the potential exists for an energy economy based on production of primary energy
from nuclear fusion (currently being researched) coupled with hydrogen technology, once hydrogen
economy infrastructure is developed.
Bridge to the Future
It is expected that wind, solar and biomass (WSB) energy sources, fossil fuel energy sources, and fission-
based nuclear energy will all help provide a bridge to such a sustainable future energy supply.
For now, however, fission-based nuclear power is 40 years ahead of WSB energy supply. Nuclear power
must remain as an essential part of the mix of energy sources if we are to continue with sustainable
development in the first half of the 21st century.
Waste Management
Any human endeavor produces waste, whether you cook a meal, drive a car, or wash your clothes. Any
form of energy production creates waste too, whether we use coal, solar, wind, gas or nuclear energy.
Waste is simply part of living, and the only way to deal with it, is to find solutions for the challenge.
In the nuclear science and technology industry, waste comes from different activities. It arises from the
use of radioisotopes in medicine, in research, in agriculture in manufacturing, as a byproduct of the
generation of electricity through nuclear fuels, and more.
DID YOU KNOW?
 Making electricity in a nuclear power plant produces a small amount of high-level radioactive
wastes. A lifetime supply of electricity for one person produces only a soda can size amount of
such nuclear wastes.
 Nuclear waste still contains 95% of its energy. That’s like taking a drink from your can of soda
and throwing the rest away.
 Nuclear waste can be recycled, and actually produces energy while being recycled, instead of
requiring energy to recycle.
 The U.S. does not currently recycle used nuclear fuel but citizens, utilities, and government
officials are discussing it. Used Nuclear fuel is safely stored in the U.S. in special facilities.
Contrary to what some antinuclear activists would like you to believe, the nuclear industry has found a
solution for its waste challenges. Radioactive wastes must be managed and disposed of properly.
Federal agencies and some states control the risks that come with radioactive waste by setting limits
and regulations that disposal facilities must follow. EPA is responsible for setting environmental
standards that are used by other federal and state agencies in regulations for the disposal of radioactive
waste.

Types of Radioactive Waste

In the U.S., radioactive waste is divided into three main types, classified according to their activity, their
heat generation potential, and what they physically contain. These three main levels are low level
waste (LLW), transuranic waste (TRU), and high level waste (HLW). For each of these types of waste,
there is a specific disposal solution — above ground storage or shallow burial for low level waste and
deep repository storage for transuranic and high level wastes.
In most other countries, nuclear waste is categorized as low level waste, intermediate level waste, and
high level waste. The reason for this different classification system is that in the U.S. waste is classified
based on where it comes from; in most other countries, waste is classified according to what the effects
of the waste might be. In both classifications, low level waste represents about 90% of all radioactive
waste.
Low Level Waste
Low level nuclear waste represents about 90% of all radioactive wastes. It includes ordinary items, such
as cloth, bottles, plastic, wipes, etc. that come into contact with some radiation. These low level wastes
are generated anywhere radioisotopes are produced or used — in nuclear power stations, in your local
hospital and in your dentist’s office, in university research laboratories, in manufacturing and food
irradiation facilities.
It is not dangerous to handle, and can easily be disposed off in a dry engineered landfill. There, low level
wastes are less dangerous than the chemical and organic wastes from our homes that are sent to
municipal landfills. The distinguishing factor of low level waste is that it contains virtually no alpha
emitters. Alpha radiation is more dangerous, and, therefore, needs better protection.
For regulatory purposes, low level wastes are classified into three classes (A, B, and C), according to the
activity of the waste, the concentration, and the types of radioisotopes it contains. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has set requirements for each type, so that they are disposed properly and
safely. Class A (about 95% of all low level waste), contains radionuclides with the lowest concentrations
and the shortest half-lives. Classes B and C contain greater concentrations of radionuclides with longer
half-lives, and must meet stricter disposal requirements than Class A waste.
Examples of low-level wastes:
 ion exchange resins and filter materials used to clean water at a nuclear power plant
 contaminated hand tools, components, piping, and other equipment from nuclear power plants
and other industries
 research equipment from laboratories where radioactive materials are used
 shoe covers, lab coats, cleaning cloths, paper towels, etc., used with radioactive material
 containers, cloth, paper, fluids, and equipment in contact with radioactive materials used in
hospitals to diagnose or treat disease
 filters from sampling devices used to test for airborne radioactive contamination
 scintillation fluids in which filters from some sampling devices must be dissolved in order to
determine the amount of radioactive material present carcasses of animals treated with
radioactive materials used in medical or pharmaceutical research
Transuranic Waste
Transuranic waste (also called TRU waste) is a regulatory classification of waste that applies only in the
U.S. This type of waste is called “trans-uranic”, because it contains more than 3700 Bq per gram of
elements heavier than uranium (the elements with atomic number higher than 92).

TRU waste is comprised of certain wastes from reprocessing and waste from nuclear weapons
production. The Department of Energy has considerable TRU in storage and has started sending it to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
Since the U.S. does not reprocess its spent fuel, the commercial nuclear science and technology industry
currently produces no transuranic waste.
High Level Waste
Click to View
High-Level Waste is the actual spent fuel, or the residual waste from reprocessing spent fuel. The U.S.
does not reprocess its spent fuel. Therefore, all the highly radioactive isotopes remain within it, and the
whole fuel assemblies are treated as high level waste. The disadvantage of this “once-through” fuel
cycle is that partially used nuclear fuel is treated as waste, thereby increasing the volume and
complexity of disposal.
High level waste is very radioactive and, therefore, requires special shielding during handling and
transport. It also needs cooling, because it generates quite a lot of heat because of the high
radioactivity level.
A typical large nuclear reactor produces 25-30 tons of spent fuel per year. If the fuel were reprocessed
and vitrified, the waste would be only about 3 cubic meters per year.