What about the waste?

21/05/25 Some thoughts which may change your perspective on the issue of radioactive waste, which I once, like you, thought to be a concern. By Marie

First is the consensus around what constitutes the level of radioactivity that we should be concerned about.  The current regulations for ionising radiation are largely based on a dose-response relationship established over 80 years ago by Herman Mueller, using very basic technology at the time. This framework operates on the unproven assumption that only ‘no dose’ is a safe threshold. However, with advancements in monitoring technology, we now know that low background radiation exists globally, and our bodies are well-adapted to it.

The nuclear industry is regulated to ensure public exposure doesn’t exceed 1 mSv per year. To put this in perspective, this level is lower than the natural background radiation in Cornwall, which is 2.7 mSv. There are even regions in Iran with background radiation levels exceeding 200 mSv, and no adverse health effects have been observed in those populations.  It’s little wonder why nuclear new builds have become increasingly costly.

It seems we have a choice: either we base our regulations for low-dose radiation on actual evidence, recognising that it’s not causing harm, or we apply a similar level of scrutiny to carbon emissions. The evidence clearly shows that carbon emissions *are* causing harm, contributing to more frequent and intense extreme weather events like typhoons, droughts, and famines, resulting in loss of life. 

Another point to do with waste, is that it doesn’t go anywhere. It isn’t gooey like in the Simpsons, or pose a ‘mutation’ problem, and is very well accounted for and managed. It mostly consists of heavy metals. So, for example, there was a natural fission reaction below Gabon, which happened 2 billion years ago, and the ‘waste’ is still there. It didn’t go anywhere or harm anyone or anything.

Thirdly, I could point you to the discussion from a Dr Pete Bryant, and he points out that although people immediately think of radioactivity from nuclear fission, the issue in practice is more about the excess heat that, for thermodynamic reasons to do with the Rankin/Carnot cycle, like with any thermal plant, poses more of a problem for those occupied with building a nuclear power station than the very small amount of contained solid waste: https://youtu.be/c5Ujdy5b_eA?feature=shared

I didn’t find the answers I was looking for with regards to decarbonisation from any formal educational setting, and I hope this will change for the coming generations. However, the college course did open my eyes to the issues of the scale of decarbonisation required and the problems associated with mining for chemicals for batteries and other such green technologies. 

Something else I discovered recently is that we actually do generate the same amount of energy from biomass, solar and wind as we consume in electricity per capita per year in the UK. The problem is we can’t store it all, and gas is the best partner for intermittent energy, to the tune of 49 plants across the country. So in a way, renewables are keeping us dependent on fossil fuels, which is a big problem, and I can’t think of a more disastrous approach to this than trying to fill the down time with batteries, and the infinite number of extra harvesting devices needed to ensure we have enough storage during windless weeks, by which point I am sure people realise this approach of relying on intermittent energy is not eco friendly!