The Dangers of Global Warming on Nuclear Power Plants, and the Impact of Radioactive Waste on Marine Environments
Philadelphia, PA
2019, Junior, Creative Writing
Global warming will mean we see more frequent natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis.[1] I investigated how that could cause nuclear materials to end up in our oceans, and the impact that would have.
On March 11, 2011, a colossal 9.1 magnitude earthquake rocked the seabed off the east coast of Japan. It was the fourth most powerful earthquake in modern recorded history,[2] creating a giant tsunami, which roared over the eastern shores of Japan. The soaring waves reached heights of 128 feet in some places,[3] destroying everything in its path. The tsunami wiped out whole villages and towns, flattening buildings in its path. It was a tragedy, not just for humans, but also for our oceans. The tsunami swept an estimated five million tons of debris out to sea, with boats and other trash from the disaster still washing up on North American beaches for years afterwards.2 The tsunami also killed more than 110,000 nesting seabirds at the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.2
The scariest consequence of the tsunami was that it hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Protocols at the plant meant all the reactors were shut down as soon as the earthquake was reported, and the plant was supposedly protected by sea walls. Nobody had imagined a tsunami this size would occur though, and the wave smashed through the sea defenses and flooded the generators that were used to cool the radioactive cores. This caused a meltdown and explosions in three of the reactors. The damage allowed groundwater to move into the area and become contaminated, which then found its way to the ocean. Even seven years later, radioactive water still flowed into the sea at the rate of two billion becquerels (a measurement of radiation) a day,[4] and the solution has not yet been found to fully prevent it.
What damage has the radioactive water from Fukushima caused on marine life? Well, because the Pacific Ocean is immense and has strong currents, the effect was weakened. The massive quantity of water has meant the radiated particles are diluted over a huge area. Although fish close to the plant have a higher level of radiation than those from cleaner areas, they aren’t dangerously radioactive.
That doesn’t mean we should relax, though. Instead, we need to look at studies of previous nuclear waste dump sites in our oceans. In the early days of nuclear energy, when scientists were just beginning to harness the atom to make bombs and nuclear submarines, they decided that nuclear waste was safest stored deep underwater. Because the ocean beds are some of the most stable areas of the Earth’s surface, and because the water is cold all year round at those low depths, it meant the material would be safe from damage and overheating. They stored the waste in concrete blocks, or melted it into glass, and placed it inside large cannisters.[5] These were dropped to the bottom of the sea, and everyone was glad to have them far away from people—out of sight, out of mind. Between 1946 and 1993, 13 countries were dumping nuclear waste materials into the oceans and seas.[6]
Let’s focus on the former USSR. In 2013 they admitted to irresponsibly dumping “two submarines, 14 reactors (five of which contain spent nuclear fuel), 19 other vessels sunk with radioactive waste on board, and about 17,000 containers holding radioactive waste.”[7] All of this highly radioactive and potentially dangerous material was dumped into the Barents and Kara Seas. They admitted to the dumping because they needed other countries to help them clean it up, so that the area would be safe for offshore drilling for gas and oil. They also had the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, which caused radioactive ash clouds to contaminate the Baltic Sea. What impact did these activities have?
Scientists have been looking to find whether nuclear contamination works its way up the food chain. They look for CS-137, a radioactive isotope that doesn’t occur in nature, only from fission in power plants and other manmade sources. They hypothesized that CS-137 would be absorbed by seaweed,[8] algae, and micro-organisms. These then get eaten by small fish and mollusks, then larger sea life, and eventually marine mammals. They looked to see the levels of CS-137 in the grey and ringed seals in the Baltic Sea in the late 80s and 90s. Researchers tested the seals’ muscle tissue for CS-137 and found that the concentration in the grey seals was nine times higher than in the herrings, which were their main food source. Ringed seals were 3.5 times higher. They concluded that the CS-137 was being consumed and passed up the food chain.[9]
In 1990 marine biologists became concerned after millions of dead starfish washed up on the White Coast. They started testing the harp seals that breed in the Barents Sea to try to find a cause. They discovered that the blood and tissue samples of the seals showed “blood pathologies consistent with long-term toxic or radioactive exposure.” They suspected that the long-term dumping and nuclear missile testing around the area by the USSR was responsible. “This is a problem so big and serious it goes beyond us,” says Yuri K. Timoshenko, director of the marine mammal laboratory at the Polar Scientific Research Institute.” It goes beyond our studies and finances.”[10] Thousands of harp seals died of cancer in their blood at this time. The nuclear waste impact can’t be ruled out as a cause.
The good news is that humans have grown more aware of the dangers of radiation and developed better ways to contain the waste materials. Clean-up has been undertaken in the Barents to deal with some of the most dangerous dump sites, and it has been illegal to dump more in the last few decades. But the nuclear problem is still a real threat to our oceans.
Because of the cheap and available source of cold water in the ocean, many nuclear plants are situated along coastlines. The water is used to cool the reactors. As global warming leads to more extreme weather conditions and more earthquakes, the risk of tsunamis increases. Also, as the popularity of nuclear energy fades, older facilities get closed down and start to fall into disrepair.[11] Many of these sites are along coasts near fault-lines, such as the Diablo Canyon plant in California.[12] California has the very active San Andreas Faultline, and scientists say a major earthquake is long overdue there. They say “The Big One” will occur before 2045.[13]
All of these nuclear facilities and radioactive waste storage sites along the coasts are at greater risk of tsunamis, as global warming makes catastrophic natural disasters more common. As we saw from Fukushima, the protections and sea walls in place cannot withstand the towering force of the ocean. It seems likely that more plants will experience nuclear meltdown and more waste will end up pouring into our already suffering oceans. We need to learn from the past and prevent future nuclear disasters, or risk losing our ocean mammals to cancers caused by radiation. Severe nuclear disasters are estimated to occur every 10 to 20 years.[14] Fukushima was eight years ago. Time to start the countdown.
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-usgs-number-puts-japan-quake-at-4th-largest
[3] https://www.livescience.com/39110-japan-2011-earthquake-tsunami-facts.html
[4] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/03/29/national/seven-years-radioactive-water-fukushima-plant-still-flowing-ocean-study-finds/#.XQa3zY97mUk
[5] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx
[6] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1105_prn.pdf
[7] https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbn9e9/the-soviet-union-dumped-a-bunch-of-nuclear-submarines-reactors-and-containers-into-the-ocean
[8]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259206651_Radioactive_cesium_accumulation_in_seaweeds_by_the_Fukushima_1_Nuclear_Power_Plant_accident-two_years’_monitoring_at_Iwaki_and_its_vicinity
[9] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718306831
[10] https://nuclear-news.net/2015/08/31/barents-sea-the-arctics-radioactive-legacy-of-soviet-nuclear-weapons-testing/
[11] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-waste-decommissioning
[12] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear-20180111-story.html
[13] https://www.theepochtimes.com/researchers-california-long-overdue-for-big-earthquake-experiencing-100-year-drought_2867067.html
[14] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm
Reflection
Reflection
When I saw the topic “Presence of Future,” I thought about those big disaster movies. I had planned to write a story based on a nuclear power plant meltdown and what it did to the marine life in the area, but as I did more research, I realized how little information was available about the actual impact. It seems a lot more scientific research is needed on this topic. I realized it was hard to write fiction about a nuclear disaster without focusing on the human experience more than the oceans, so I decided to explore the information available from studies about the effects of radioactivity in the ocean. I read up on Fukushima and was surprised how little the radioactivity had impacted sea life. I realized that was because of how quickly it was dispersed over the whole Pacific. Other places like the Baltic Sea are smaller, so the effect would be greater. I wanted to show that global warming is a big threat as it will mean more earthquakes and tsunamis that can lead to worse disasters than Chernobyl and Fukushima. Other disasters such as flooding could also damage radioactive waste storage tanks and bring that toxic water to the sea. So far we have been lucky, but we need to realize we won’t always be lucky. I was glad to read some good news though, that people have been working to clean up previous nuclear waste dumps and close nuclear plants. It gave me some hope.