ML20010B191

Possible Effects of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents on Agriculture

ML20010B191
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/30/1981
From:	Bell M, Stephen Bell TENNESSEE, UNIV. OF, KNOXVILLE, TN
To:
Shared Package
ML20010B188	List: ML20010B187 ML20010B191
References
NUDOCS 8108140201
Download: ML20010B191 (15)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ University of Tennessee -i h Agricultural Experiment Station g Possible Effects of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents On Agriculture RR No. 81-11 June,1981 1 ) I ] { M. C. Bell ) and Sharon L. Bell ) ( I DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 50*I$8ER*o!$88g (

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR ACCIDENTS ON AGRICULTURE rn ~ e Ie 4; P &L ,V ,lr 5 w e,.g.Y a a:ett rF lf $$q u f;,..g',; {i$420#]." .f@iis i g. 'a= V 4 v,.:.. .c .ief li e n ./ 1 l' ?, : g@.Q'"""'yrg ?ci f"$ g $~g ES$ bi@ %,i NAphyRJgg {tN]w9 g gp~ Nth; 'g-5 m e 'g m _m 9 .e Mg gg% N+So4n%~"l1 f{x-{ Q9ig 3 av o a ' n :t("Un,if"$ $w;f lq w-(y G 1 , kQ'f";'My' "yxqq ~ %p;g.v-p, y q,, g,- a .(, .c h k, t r ,[ [ l ii6 r l l 1, n' d' l

• il ll
• Q' s

?

\\ j 1\\ YlAlf ,,,(. m 0l; o, ' it n bhjilIY f,.-

Possible Effects of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents on Agriculture by Af. C. Bell and Sharon L. Bell Animal Science Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville than five percent of the population. Over 75 percent of ABSTRACT the population in many of the developing countries are Nuclear power reactors are producing electricity in involved in food and fiber production. Most developing the United States and throughout the world. From the countries do not produce sufficient food for their own data available, the nuclear power reactor industry ap-use while we export our surplus of over half of our food pears to be as safe if not safer than most other industries grains in order to pay for some of our expensive imports for the production of electricity. A popular riisconcep-such as oil. Also, some of our food exports are gifts to tion is that nuclear reactors will explode like an atomic feed starving people throughout the world. To continue bomb. Danger to humans appears to have been much a viable agriculture we need a continuous supply of less than anticipated fro the Three Mile Island acci-energy from whatever sources are available. We need to dent. Protective Action . tides (PAG's) have been continue to produce food which is relatively safe from established for action in the event of major nuclear ac-risk to humans. This safety should be considered in rela-cidents. PAGs were not exceeded at Three Mile Island. tion to the other risks in life. People, dairy farms and The possibility of major contamination of the power plants go hand-in-hand in this country because agricultural community downwind from a nuclear where the people are, there is a need for food and a need' power plant appears to be unlikely. In the event of ac-fu energy. In fact, over 75 percent of the United States' tion on PAGs, radioactive isotopes of iodine through total milk cows are located in states with one or more the food chain to humans are the radioactive isotopes of operatiig nuclear power reactors (Halsey 1980c). The ~ primary concern. These could enter by way of milk stress an milk in this report is because milk is the from grazing cows and from fresh leafy vegewbles pro-primary route of radionuclide contamination in the duced downwind from the accident. Other routes of en-food chain to humans. try are not worth considering. Radioactive cesium could Dairy product consumption in the United States was be volatilized but not to the extent of iodine. Radioac-329 pounds per capita last year (Anon.1979), which is tive strontium is less apt to be released. The noble gases about 27 percent of the total volume of diet for the i krypton and xenon and the heavy metals such as general population (Shleien et al.1977). The dairy farms uranium and plutonium are not absorbed and retained which supply this need are located near the greatest by humans and animals so they are of no real threat to population centers. The Northeast with its heavily agricultural food chains to humans. In comparison wth populated areas counts tw, of the top ten dairy-natural background radiation, medical uses of radiation producing states in its ranks;.he Midwest has eight of sources and other sources of radioactivity, the added these. Along with the high dairy production, these areas amount of radiation from nuclear reactor power pro-account for over 63 percent of the total U.S. nuclear duction is very small, amounting to less than 1% of the power plants in operation. In the Midwest there are 22 natural background, even at Three Mile Island accident nuclear power plants and in the Northeast there are 23 vicinity. nuclear power plants (Anon.1980). These are followed Countermeasures for the agricultural community by the South with 20 plants, the West and Northwest would consist of removing all milk-producing animals with six and the Southwest with none. The maps that from pasture and giving stored fee:i where PAG action follow illustrate the definite relationship between the is required. Milk ahave safe levels would be stored until location of dairy cows and nuclear power rectors in this safe, diverted to other uses or simply dispersed with country (figures I and 2). waste water. Fresh leafy vegetables could be washed, outer leaves removed or destroyed if levels are unsafe. Nuclear power reactors are already a reality ir. pro-Good judgement and a cool head would be hdpful in viding part of our electrical energy demands. It is one of times when a few doorr.sday prophets are flooding the the many workable energy sources which we have con-media with rumors and data which are not applicable to tinued to explore and develop. A nuclear power reactor Simply heats water, making steam which drives a turbine nuclear reacter accidents. of a generator, thus producing electricity (Kemeny 1979). N" clear power reactor risks have been continual. y brou.ht to our attention whh inconsistent and INTRODUCTION sometimes sensationalized information being presented. Production of food and fiber in the United States It is not an energy alternative which we should discard depends upon an advanced technology involving less because of emotional hysteria; rather, it should be con-3 {

F ~ P. It 4- .i L. 1

s. i,s

\\ . C. _.. _ i \\. l b%. -) t--.-n c

t. e.1.. _. ~.

l \\* . q./ ( g k** r . :i l s. ~.,, ,, *.S s, t 4 .'). ;; '. V...- %.,. .. k @(W., %'.5 I. - - r%. ....l f .\\ \\.

z..

(' n ( -. C. --.. >.,...

• 3....,5-\\..

.e * * . s, < p 1 s g e \\ ? / 7.. : g j l s.T.J /;*i..... \\ ) / ... * *. y j*p,g' N," \\. I .L i. y _.-. ~ _ t .. r s...... \\,{-- l l i \\ .. s.e

-;.i _._s s

.3 j i-w.> \\ i / i ( { ~ i 1 \\ .\\.

_ _-. 3

\\

s I

\\ \\ Figure 1. Nuclear power reactors in the United States, including reactors licensed to operate, being built and planned. (Halsey 1980c)

1 I t ..o 9.o.. s.. c .l. ..,e :- ---..\\ s-p .. s yl ,-:.. s ./ s. s 4 .- y .Q ~. - p j. ~.,. s ..n. ~ ~. .4 \\ ~h... s m.

m... -

4 >r \\ p '-4.$ . ' ~ ~ ;, J l s l I .J .s% n \\ .:..l., -. s -- ---.- -

Y'. j

...;.,...:. J. ;;

~ 1 ..g .,y.... ~j....- ll>-*;)-.. v.M (: /.y:9 .y. s. r. 9.c { \\ . '.V ' ~ T._._ T. : k i';- $., y. c. . q.$. e 4 C ' p # l.' s. j :.Y = - .y.;;. h..x..*::\\l" . w. .s-j.s,.u u .e c I.. I : :.... i 7.,. i.'. ~. \\'... n. . - I ,.~ . 4........,. ): . ~.. <,. . y s. 1,f. , 1..

o....

• g

.s f e- .( p 7 ... I .,.(~~;l. ~

• g

]. ..;g. \\, . e. .. e o.,...- \\: I dot = 2,000 milk cows Figure 2. Density of United States milk cow population (1974). (Halsey 1980c)

sidered at ng with other opoons based on risks and costs. Vinca, Yugoslavia - October 15, 1958. An recident Perhaps the cansequences of not naving nucirr power at Vince, a suburb of Belgrade, occurred at a zero-reactors should also be very carefully considered and power reactor built for experimental purposes (Savic weighed. Resistance to technological advances is not 1959). The accident involved a brief uncontrolled run at new. Simon (1980) suggests that phony bad news and the assembly, allowed to go undetected because of the f Ise statements may be made for a number of reasons. lack of an interlock system and the fact taat the safety These include selling of books, newspapers, magazines, circuits and monitors were turned off at the time, obtaining of funds for research efforts, and to strive for At the time of supercriticality, eight persons were in en unrealistic idealistic utopian state of affairs. the immediate area around the tank and were exposed to The purposes of this report are (1) to assess the im-very large doses of neutrons and ionizing radiation pact of nuclear power reactor accidents on agriculture (Anon.1960b). Total body radiation absorbed internal-using the Three Mile Island accident as a model; (2) to ly was between 300 and 1500 roentgens (Anon.1959). place nuclear power reactor risks into proper perspec-With a dose of 400 to 500 roentgens considered lethalin tive with other risks; and (3) to propose plans of action 50 percent of cases exposed (Anon.1960b), the amount f:r the agriculturalindustry if Protective Action Guides received by the Yugoslavian workers was well above are exceeded. normal at an average d 683 rems. One person died, and the seven others were treated and apparently suffered no complications. No material escaped the facility. Three Afile Island, Goldsboro, PA - Afarch 28, HISTORY OF 1979. The accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) number NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR two reactor resulted from a series of equipment malfuncdons con @ated by human mNudgernent. ACCIDENTS The story of TMI has been told and re old but the actual Windscale A tomic Pile No.1 - October 10,1957. In-series of events that culminated in the worst nuclear ac-adequate instrumentation for maintenance operations cident that this country has seen may never be fully end poor judgement on the part of the operating staff understood. combined to cause an overheating accident at the No.1 Three Mile Island reactor, completed in December ctomic pile of the plutonium-producing facility at 1978, is a pressurized water reactor that can produce 880 Windscale, England (Bishop 1959; Anon.1957). megawatts of power. Workers who were in the immediate facility were The accident apparently started when a 'urbine trip tested and observed after the accident. For the 13 week let off nonradioactive steam into the outside at-reading on dosimeter badges, which included the time of mosphere at 100 psi on the morning of March 28. the accident, only 14 workers directly associated with Events followed that led to what was termed a general the accident exceeded the maximum permissible level of emergency at the plant. What followed was a general irradiation. The International Commissin on Radiation state of confusion as well. Part of the confusion resulted Protection (ICRP) tolerance level for 13 weeks was then from the lack of direct authority for just such an 3.0 r. The highest figure measured from the badges was emergency. On the scene were representatives of various 4.66 r (Anon.1957). Per thyroid the highest level was government agencies, state regulators and assorted only 0.5 uCi. A report to the British Parliament shortly media personnel. Reports were handed down from the cfter the accident said: "Since iodine has a short life Pennsylvania governor's office, the Nuclear Regulatory some increase over the ICRP level can properly be made Commission's crisis response center, the Pennsylvania l if the dose occurs on a single occasion" (Anon.1957). Departmen't of Environmental Resources, Metropolitan Public concern mounted and precautions were taken Edison (who operated the plant), Nuclear Reactor to ensure uncontaminated food supplies. In order to Regulation (a division of NRC), Pennsylvania Emergcn-protect children from possible contamination with fis. cy Management Agency and various other groups. This sion products released from the accident, milk supplies left the people in the surrounding areas with virtually no in the area were condemned for human consumption if real center of authority to turn to for recommendations samples showed 0.1 uCi/ liter of radioiodine during the crisis time. A warning from 1961 rang true: ) (Chamberlain and Dunster 1958; Anon.1957). Milk "An accident of the type at Windscale, followed by in-distribution was under restriction for two to five weeks decision and vacillating directives could do irreparable in a coastal area near the accident about 30 miles long, harm to the nuclear energy program in the United 10 miles wide at one end and six miles at the other end States" (Ward 1%I). (Anon.1957; Ward 1%1). Other sources of possible Equipment failures and operator errors resulted in contamination were chnked in the area and found not coolant levels in the pressure vessel falling below the top to be harmful, and thus no restrictions were placed on of the core, resulting in its serious overheating. Claims ) cny of these (Anon.1957; Chamberlain and Dunster abounded that the core would melt down, expelling 1958). massive amounts of radioactive materials onto the sur-The report to the British Parliament said, "We feel rounding area. Further reports concluded that even if that we can justifiably say that it is in tiv Sighest degree the core had melted down, it "would probably solidify unlikely that any harm has been done to the health of before it melted through the TMI concrete foundation, cnybody in the course of this incident" (Anon.1957). and even if it didn't, the bedrock underneath would be 6

an effective block" (Burnett 1980). If a meltdown were advertising th ir milk c'm3 frem other creas and sales to happen the fissionable material would be in a less of bottled witer incre: sed clso cs consumirs received condensed mass so this would reduce the fission rate daily doses of new terrors via media broadcasts and and in turn reduce the temperature. publications. Of farmers surveyed in the area,69 per. As it happened the core was severely damaged but cent said they felt the media overplayed the incident and didn't melt down. There were releases of radioactive 68 percent said they thought their milk sales were hurt by gases from the TMI facility in the form of xenon-133 TMI plant shutdown (Halsey 1980b). and. -vnon-85, noble gases which are not retained in Bill Fouse, head of Pennsylvania Division of Milk the human body. About 15 Ci of radioactive iodine was Sanitation, who was in charge of inspection and quality released into the atmosphere. "The health e',ects of this assurance during the accident, summed up the attitude iodine were insignificant" (Burnett 1980). Sampling at of many farmers toward the TMI accident and the 375 kilometers of the air mass containing gas released energy situation as a whole with this statement: "I think from the TMI plant showed that the "whole-body dose the farmer will probably think more rationally than any to an individual.. from exposure to gamma rays and other segment of society" (Halsey 1980a). X-rays from the passing xenon-133 . was 0.004 The special Kemeny Commission concluded that in . mrem" which is about 0.004 percent of the amount spite of the serious damage to TMI plant that actual received from natural sources (Wahlen et al.1980). release of radioactivity will have a negligible effect on The facility is located in the middle of the Susquehan-individuals. Mental stress was the main effect! na River just south of the state capital of Harrisburg. In this area there are over 100 dairy farms within 50 miles of the plant. There was a total of 8,490 dairy cattle, 1,880 beef cattle,475 swine,100 sheep,70 horses and 18 POSSIBLE cul ure in May f low ng lh acci. RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION Dep rtment f dent (Halsey 1980b). There are 630,000 people in a Sources. It is very important in discussing radiation to 20-mile radius of the plant. remember that radioactivity is not a new creation. It oc-Because of concern that there n.icht be iodine-131 in curs naturally and for over 50 years man has used it for i the air, testing of milk was started the day of the acci-his own purposes. Naturally-occurring radioactivity can l dent. During the first crucial days following the acci-be found in the earth's crust, building mate-i.ds, drink-dent, tests were conducted on 50 dairy farms within 35 ing water, space, people and animals (Lenihan 1959). miles of the plant. Sa. gi:ng was done by the Penn-All species have evolved with radiation from cosmic sylvania Department of Agriculture's Division of Milk rays and radioactive minerals. Man, too, has developed Sanitation. Two gallons of milk were taken from each with different levels of natural radiation found dairy for testing by the Bureau of Radiation Prctection throughout the world. and by the Food and Drug Administration. Milk was In southwest France, natural radioa-tivity exposure also checked at 26 dairy processors (Halsey 1980a). from two natural uranium isotopes exceeds 100 rads a Early milk tests showed insignificant amounts of year (I conard et al.1979). This area in southern France radioisotopes. Final testing of the fresh milk revealed a and in northern Italy is known for its health spas that range from 16 to 41 picocuries per liter (Halsey 1980a). advertise curative pow ers from mud and waters that are This amount was significantly below the 12,000 high in alpha rays. These centers command high prices picocuries per liter at which milk is considered unsafe to and send out many pleased customers who claim drink and the 400 picoeuries per liter in Pennsylvania benefits from the naturalty-occurring radiation from the 1976 China tests (Krieg 1979). (Hollander 1980). Precautionary measures were taken to prevent con-Areas of the United States also are naturally high in tamination. Farmers were advited to put their animals radiation. In Denver, for example, estimates are from in barns and give stored feed although most cows were 130 to 230 millirem per person per year; for the whole still in barns from winter (Krieg 1979). The stored feed cDuntry, 80 to 105 millirem. In addition to. this would not have been contaminated by effluents from background radiation, other sources contribute to total TMI. [ Testing of vegetables and soil samples revealed yearly dosage. Medical treatments add an average of no traces of radioisotopes from TMI (Krieg 1979)]. another 70 millirems to the total per person per year In a survey conducted by the editor of Dairy Herd (EPA 1977; Bodansky 1980). Management magazine of their readers in the sev-n-If the nuclear power plant system in this country were county area surrounding TMI, only one percent of the greatly expanded, the additional average dose above respondents moved their cows to another location dur-background and all other sources would only be about ing the height of the crisis. Ninety-three percent didn't one millirem per person per year (Bodansky 198G; even consider moving them. Only one percent of the Natural background radiation averages amu: WO times drirymen dumped any milk because of the accident this level. At present the amount of radiadon received (Halsey 1980b). from nuclear power plante under normal conditions is Although the milk was considered safe to drink, some less than the amount of adionuclides emitted from consumers in neighboring states were wary of milk pro-coal-fired power plants. In fact, a preliminary study by ] ducts from the TMI area. Grocery stores put up signs the Environmental Protection Agency rated coal up to 7

l l 80 times riskier than nudear power reictors in terms of tration th;n the cverages; anthracite fr m Pennsylvania the radionuclides given off during normal operation was the highest in thorium, cnd lignite from th: Gulf (Agres 1980). The study suggested that there are States - Alabama, Arkansas and hiississippi - was " greater risks to the public of developing cancer from highest in uranium (htcBride et al.1978). All uranium r:dionuclides emitted by coal-fired power plants than and thorium regardless of source is radioactive. Both of by normally-eperating nuclear plants." (Agres 1980). these elements occur in several isotopic forms and their Coal naturally contains very small amounts of U-238, radiation emissions vary in intensity, form and energy. U-235, Th-232 and their radioactive daughters (htcBride In view of these facts, the role of nuclear power must et al.1978), along with sulfur, iron and moisture (Agres be looked at in relation to other risks incurred in every-1980). As coal is burned most of the mineral content is day life. Nuclear power itself has not only been shown turned to ash and slag. These waste forms contain most to be useful but it can also be harmful. The question of of the radionuclides, but small amounts do manage to radiation is not just one dealing with nuclear power escape into the atmosphere. These amounts depend plants; it deals also with background, coal fired power upon the " particulate control system, furnace design, plants, medical X-rays, radiation treatments, jet flights, mineral centent of the coal, and the existing emission cardiac pacemakers, watches, smoke detectors, artificial control standards." (Agres 1980). As more new scrubb-teeth, and nuclear explosions (Haaland 1979). ing systems are put into use, the amounts of escaping Other than medical uses of ionizing radiation, most particulate matter are expected to decrease and the of the experience with high levels of radiation has been adverse health effects are also expected to decrease. with radioactive fallout resulting from nuclear weapons However, the present figures for fatalities from coal are tests during the 1950s and 1960s - the Cold War higher than those for nuclear power (Bodansky 1980) period. The United States did much of its testing at (table 1). This comparison is not inter.ded to incriminate Nevada Test Site and on small, uninhabited islands in coal for its very small amount of radioactivity but mere-the Pacific Ocean, and some accidental exposure occur-ly to demonstrate that there are sources of radioactivity red. There were accidental exposures to residents on the in addition to that contributed by nuclear power plants. h1arshall Islands on h1 arch 1,1954 when wind direc-Coal from different parts of the country contains tions shifted unexpectedly and carried "significant various levels of radionuclides. Coal types from all parts amounts of fallout" to the islands of Rongelap, Ail-of the United States averaged one part per million for ingnae and Utirik. The amounts of whole body gamma uranium and two ppm for thorium (NicBride et al. radiation ranged from 175 r on Rongelap,69 r on Ail-1978). Some coals were 10 to 40 times higher in concen-ingnae to 14 r on Utirik (Sutow et al.1%5). None of the residents or Utirik developed radiation symptoms, but the residents of the other two islands Table 1. Estimated annual fatalities resulting routinely showed signs and later showed some latent effects of from the generation of one GW-> ear of electricity, in their exposure. coal-fired and nuclear plants. The estimates include the Experimental procedures have shown varying effects complete fuel cycle excluding reactor accidents. of radiation on animals. It is noteworthy that the Bodansky,1980) estimate given for the median lethal dose for man is "300-500 rads for short-term total-body radiation" Fatalities (Hamilton 1%3). A similar lethal dose (LD 50) applies Cause per GW-year to animals as well (Bell 1971). Animal data is much more extensive and some of it was obtair.-d from Coal animals at Nevada Test Site. Accidents, mining 0.8 Low Level Radiation F,ffects The natural radiation Accidents, transportation I to 2 levels in southwest France in excess of 100 rads per year Total 2 to 3 were studied. Researchers found that an annual dose of Pollution, new plants with lime 70 rads gamma rays per year to rabbits caused smallin-scrubbers 0.007 to 17 creases in chromosome aberrations in the blood lym-Pollution, old plants,3 percent sulfur pheytes; while there was "no effect en the spermatozoa coal 3 to 170 of male mice similarly exposed, nor of their offspring" (Leonard et al.1979). From these and similar studies, it Total Coal: 2 to 170 appears that chromosome aberrations are not indicative of measurable damage to germ plas:n which would Nuclear Power result in effects on offspring. Nonradiation accidents (mining) 0.4 Extensive studies were conducted at the Los Alamos Radiation, occupational 0.3 Scientific Laboratory with 44 generations of male mice. Radiation, public 0.2 These studies " failed to reveal any genetic effects from Total radiation 0.5 large gonadal radiation doses" (Anon.1956). This lire of mice received a total dose of 8,800 rads over the Total Nuclear: 0.9 44-generation period with "no demonstrable damage" reported. As compared with the controls, the irradiated 8 I

mice showed no subst'nti'l differences in reproc"ictive life and over"Il life span, tmong other factors. C. iclu-Table 2. Classification cf Nuclear P:wer Reactor si:ns drawn from this study indicate that mutations in Accidents (Grimes and Ryan 1980) sperm may in fact be induced, but the deviations were pr:bably fatal to the fertilized eggs (Anon.1966). amn meinn Espen d a ennipuon pot o. freg==y After a five-year study, Shetland ponies irradiated with a cumulative exposure of 650 r of whole-body gam-ci, i ma radiation were found, in general, "able to perform Nonfication Unusual events No rele.ws of Once or twice

• '*""""5"*3

'" i" P'*c'" '*d**"i" "*- P" "*' P" work under the conditions of the experiment as effi-ciently as the non-irradiated ponies" (Brown 1975). "[$,"$ l,' [fE-n Numerous other studies have been conducted dealing case a poten-sponse or noni-with e'fects of high and low levels of radiation. Since "* d'srada-inins are n-d " risk may be looked upon as the probability of the oc-i e f are y r 4, currence of some unfavorable event" (Wodicka 1980), of the plant. dation of safe- 'r $r5'"a5 "c-the risk of operating a nuclear reactor power plant must be considered in relation to other risks encountered in everyday life, aan 2: Nuclear Reactor Accidents. There are four general ', *"," '* l" j""'" y

• o"n",'",,

^" chssifications of nuclear power reactor accidents as occurred.hich of I-131 equiv-unit. d; fined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: ia'ol" *a *c-deat w uP to notification of unusual event, alert, site emergency, and ,ig,,'3,'"','"~ g,'; i general emergency (table 2). ii i degradation of the level of Thus, in terms of specific accidents, there are some types that can occur. The two types of concern from the "(( ' '"' public standpoint are loss of coolant accidents (LOCA) c.nd fuel meltdowns. C1855 3: "It now seems probable that the worst possible acci-es o u( nceln Ewnu an n Re ,o 0 d } dent from the point of view of the exposure to the public occurred which 131 equivalent once in 5000 i"'*i" *""*1 "' up to 30' O Vearl Per to ionizing radiation is not a runaway nuclear reaction, but a loss of coolant accident," said Professor Richard " f$' "'I" N'[,'" **# Wilson in 1973. He explained that the accident could piant functions hippen if the cooling system in the reactor vessel or a"ded 'a' P'a-strem piping failed. Even though the nuclear reaction ',"d*," ' '"' would stop as soon as the moderator (the coolant) aass ( disappeared, heat would continue to be produced, leav. Ewnu are n Relea ing the core uncooled, unprotected and with the [""'$,, ,,,, n a 1000 n b 5 0 possibility of meltdown (Wilson 1973). occurred which a of I-131 years per unit. involve actual equivalent or Life threaten-A meltdown could ocur "if no steps were taken to re-estiblish core cooling" (Wilson 1973). In both the "j",',7g'"'.,,, ' 'Y[Ni lo ' ~ ' * ' aof x i3s ie Kemeny Commission Report (the President's special desradation or equivaieni. maesi once in committee charged with investigating the Three hiile melting with about 100,000 istmd incit.cnt) and the Rogovin Report (the NRC's in-P',",' io, f on ain. (uiry of Thil) conclusions were drawn that a core meni iniesrity. m;ltcio n would probably not have gone through the containment building and even if it did, either the ed or ruptured the presure vessel (Burnett 1980). bedrock or the soil below the facil,ty would not have Nuclear reactors are designed so that it is impossible for i tllowed the melted core to go anywhere (Burnett 1980). them to explode like an atomic bomb (Kemeny 1979). The question of explosions in nuclear power reactors The following table (table 3) includes estimates for is one of little concern. In 1%9, Dr. Karl Z. h1 organ, airborne activity that could be available for release from then director of Health Physics Division of Oak Ridge containment in the event of some types of accident se-N tional Laboratory, said, "At this point, I would like quences. to make it very clear that nuclear explosions (weapons type) are impossible in nuclear power reactors" (N1 organ 1%9). Earlier, in 1%5, Dr. A. B. Park of Agricultural Research with USDA told a veterinary POSSIBLE FOOD CHAIN medical convention that if an explosion did occur, it CONTAMINATION would "be about the same explosive hazard as a boiler blowing up" (Park and Todd 1%5). Dairy cows play an important link in the human food A Kemeny conclusion was that at Thil the hydrogen chain by supplying nutrients, using sources of nutrients bubble inside the pressure vessel could not have explod-that humans can't directly use and filtering out 9 ~

undesir:bles from the diet. The peak concentr: tion of 13II from a single dose oc-Iodine. Iodin?, essential to the thyroid girnd func-curs about one day after the intake. If cows tre allowed tion, is usually present in the thyroid equal to the to remain on coritaminated pasture, the peak level will cmount in the diet (Miller et al.1975). Feeding excess be reached in three days (Comar 1965). Still, the amount iodine, however, increased iodine excretion with some that is passed on in milk is less than the cow received. increase in thyroid iodine. lodine losses from normal in- "Under conditions of oral ingestion, about eight per-take include 30 percent of the intake lost in feces,40 cant of the daily intake of 1311 is secreted into each percent in urine and eight percent in milk. (Dairy cows cay's milk" (Comar 1965). secrete less iodine in milk than most other species.) The physical half-life of I311 is eight days, but ex. Cows have different levels of iodine in their milk at dif-perimental work has shown that on undisturbed pasture ferent stages of lactation with a higher percent dose per it may vary from three to six days - usually occurring liter occurring in the later stages. However, a mixed at five days - for the biological half-life (Sasser and herd of cows will be at different stages and this will not Hawley 1966). Dilution of the 13II could be from rain-play an important part in the level of radioiodine in the Table 3. Comparison of Kemeny Commission estimate for postulated meltdown with " design basis" LOCA and with Rasmussen (Burnett 1980) Time (1) Percent of core fission product inventory that is airbourne Xe-Kr Org. I I Cs-Rb Te-Sb Sr-Ba Ru* Lam " Design Basis" LOCA 0 100To 25 W No meltdown, TID re-leases I hr 100We 0.25 Ve Rasmussen Release to Atmosphere Worst containment failure (PWR-%) 90?. 0.7 o 70Te 50 % 40 % 60s 40 % 0.4 % Containment leak, no spray (PWR-4) 60 0.1 9. 4. 3. 0.5 .3 0.04 Containment leak, spray (PWR-5) 30 0.2 3. 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.06 0.007 Kemeny Estimates n,. TMI Postulated Mel:down Max. 100Te 0.001-0.2 3. 1. 5. 0.06 0.3 6x10-5 (4) (Airbourne ac-I hr 100 % 0.001-0.2 0.4 1. 5. 0.06 0.3 6x10-5 tivity in contain-6 hr 100 % 0.001-0.2 0.09 0.1 0.6 0.008 0.(M 7x104 ment building) 24 hr 100 % 0.00040.1 0.03 104 5x104 6x104 3x10-5 6x104 8 4 0.0002 10 5x104 6x104 3 x10-5 6x104 4 240 hr 100 % 10 -10 Ol ncludes Nd, Y, Ce, Pr, Nb, Am, Cm, Pu, Np, Zr 4IITime after release %to the containment. For Kemeny work, relea-i se snto contammen. a taken et the Isme the core melted throuth the reactor vessel (7 hours after the beginning of the accident, and 4 nours (4) Compiled from Kemeny " Technical Staff Analysis Report on after the start offuel melting). Alternate Event Sequences," Appendix E " Fission Products inven-tory Withi*t the Containment. "and Appendix G "A nalysis of Fossion Ul ncludes Mo, Rh, Tc, Co Product Re' ease to the Containment Atmosphere. " l milk (Tamplin 1965). Even after secretion into the mam-fall, wind, mechanical disturbance or new growth. mary gland much of the iodine is available for resorp-Swedish researchers found that of the iodine-131 tion (Miller et al.1975). deposited on pasture area considerable volatilization oc-Radioisotopes of iodine would be the main concern curred before the cows were even put on the pasture. from a nuclear reactor with Illi as the predominant Between the time the pasture was sprayed and the time one. Contaminated fresh milk i. the main contributor of cows were placed on it to graze (18 hours) about 60 per-1311 to the human diet. Inha ation of 13II and con-cent of the iodine-131 deposited had disappeared. While j sumption of unwashed, contt.minated vegetables and the cows were grazing over the next three days an addi-I fruits would not be expected tc be a significant problem. tional six percent disappeared: thus, about two percent In the case of commercirfly produced fruits and was eaten by the cows (Auraldsson et al.1971). vegetables, the transit time from harvest to consumer is Since many dairy cattle are only on pasture during long enough to remove la.ge amounts of the isotope. their dry period, the possibility of contamination is Milk, on the other hand, is of major concern because of greatly reduced. However, it must be considered that its short market time. 10

some cows could receise conta:a..ating doses of showed that, following ingestion by a cow of a soluble radioiodine and pass it on in milk, form of plutonium, less than.000001% of the dose per Radiciodine may get into the cow diet via ingestion of liter was secreted into milk" (Comar 1%5). Practically contaminated pasture, contaminated feed, water or none of plutonium ingested is absorbed and 99.99% is other means. The exposure from inhalation is con. excreted in the feces. sidered minimal to zero (Thompson 1967). Once cows Krypton and xenon are inert gases which are poorly are removed from contaminated pasture, the level of soluble in water and tissues (Sagan 1974). From table 4 contamination in milk will drop rapidly. Water from it is evident that the annual doses of krypton-85 are cisterns or ponds could supply some iodine but less than small and are estimated to continue to remain insignifi-pastures. cant. In addition, the importance of cumulative doses in Exposed cattle may be fed massive doses of stable the population is marginal (Eichholz 1976). When iodine to reduce the 131 1 content in milk. Feeding 1.3 g reduced the level in milk by one-third and 2.0 g reduced it one-half when fed daily on experiment (Miller et al. Table 4. Estimated annual doses to the U.S. population 1975). Cattle other than lactating cows are of no real from worldwide distribution of krypton-85 concern to the food chain with respect to iodine-131 due to the decay of radioactive iodine and to the delay time Dose from grazing cattle to meat consumption. Radiciodine contamination of fresh vegetables and Whole-body Skin Lung fruits is not a problem with commercially-produced foods because of the transit time from harvest to maket. y,,, g,,,,3 g,,,,,3 ,,,,,3 However, home gardens could supply contaminated foodstuffs from radioactivity deposited on the surface 1960 0.0001 20 0.005 0.0002 of leafy vegetables. These vegetables, because of their 1970 0.00N 80 0.02 0.006 proximity to the consumers, may undergo only a 1980 0.003 700 0.1 0.005 24-hour holding period (or less) before they are used 1990 0.01 4,000 0.6 0.02 2000 Om 12,000 1.6 0.06 (Thompson 1967). This time period does not allow for l 13I. Direct consump-sufficient radioactive decay of I tion of 1311 in water might be a problem in cisterns but released into the atmosphere, they mix completely with not for wells and treated municipal water supplies. the air which already contains one ppm krypton and 0.1 Strontium. Biological organisms discriminate against ppm xenon. Both of these inert gases are used in light l strontium-90 in preference for calcium. Strontium-90 bulbs and xenon-133 is a radioactive gas used in cardiac, I can enter plants both by uptake through the roots and blood flow and pulmonary function studies (Windholz I by absorption after deposition on plant surfaces. The 1976; United Nations 1977). Krypton has a biological abscrption of the Ca and 90Sr from soils is influenced half-life of 18 hours; xenon, an average of seven hours 5 clay content, humus content, pH, moisture level, (Sagan 1974). concentration of electrolytes and the calcium already in the soil (Comar 1965). Strontium will more likely be taken up in soils that have a low level of calcium Renihan lW The amount of contamination tnat a cow passes along RECOMMENDATIONS in her milk will be much less than the amount ingested, in the event of a nuclear power reactor accident that for she "always puts into milk less of the strontium than releases fi sion products into the atmosphere, precau-the calcium that is 6 he ration" (Comar 1965). tions should be known and action taken at the ap-Strontium-89, with a much shortened half-life of 50 propriate time. Emotionalism has no place in the ra. days, moves through the food chain like strc,atium-90, tional control of contamination of our foods Some but in an abbreviated version. recommendations may not apply to everyoce as Cesium. Cesium-137 enters plants by direct con-geographic differences and climatic limitations otten tamination and can, therefore, be easily removed from Jictate actions more than do desires. Measures to deal plants by rainfall. Almost none of the cesium is taken with a possible contamination are given, including the up from the soil, probably because of the " fixation in Protective Action Guides (PAGs) set up by the federal the lattice structure of clay minerals." government. Once in an animal's body, cesium-137 is metabolized Soil. Soil would not be of immediate concern but pro-like potassium and moves through the gastrointestinal per management procedures could do a great deal to tract and on to the muscle tissues (Anon.1960a). In lac. reduce a problem should it occur. The addition of lime tating animals, the cesium passes on through to milk, to calcium-poor soils can reduce the uptake into plants also. As a result, most of the contamination to the of such radionuclides as strontium-90 and strontium-89. human food supply is from milk and meat (Eisenbud Vegetables. The greatest amount of contamination 1963). reaches vegetables b[ direct contamination. Rainfall Plutonium, Krypton and Xenon. " Experiments carries radionuclides into cavities of the fresh leafy 11

vegetables and collects there. For commercially produc-producers are constantly challenged by emergency situa. ed vegetables that have a waiting period between harvest tions in their day-to-day operations and the response of and market, this would not be a problem as far as some the agricultural community around Thil was very ad-contaminants are concerned. With vegetables grown at mirable. home, skins or outer leaves should be removed and the remainder washed thoroughly. Canning, freezing, or other storage of vegetables would allow decay of short-lived radionuclides. Grain. For grains, PAG action would probably never be needed, but if so it should include milling and SUMMAR), polishing. Time from harvest to consumer would be an important factor here for this, in many cases, may be Nuclear power reactors are producing electricity in several months. the United States and throughout the world. From the j Afilt Lactating dairy cows currently on pasture data available, the nuclear power reactor industry ap-should be removed and fed uncontaminated stored feed pears to be as safe if not safer than most other industries and water. Silages or other feeds harvested and stored for the Froduction of electricity. A popular misconcep-ifore an accident would be acceptable. h1 ilk should be tiun is that nuclear reactors will explode like an atomic tuted by an appropriate agency and their advice should bomb. Danger to humans appears to have been much be followed. This would likely include diversion of milk less than anticipated from the Thil accident. Protective for manufacturing purposes or withhcIding con-Action Guides (PAGs) have been established for action taminating milk ' rom market to allow for radioactive in the event of major nuclear accidents. PAGs were not decay. h1 ilk could be frozen, concentrated, dehydrated exceeded at Th11. The possibility of major contamina-or od 4 methods used to allow this to occur. hiethods tion of the agricultural community downwind from a exist n remove radionuclides from milk via ion. nuclear power plant appears to be unlikely. In the event exchangt t % columns; however, to date this process of action on PAGs, radioactive isotopes of iodine has rot been cmmercially exploited on a large scale and through the food chain to humans are the radioactive is available in only a few areas. The same principles isotopes of primary concern. These could enter by way would be involved as discussed by Bell and Blake (1976) of milk from grazing cows and from fresh leafy for protection from fallout from nuclear weapons ex-vegetables produced downwind from the accident. cept weapons fallout would be much higher concentra-Other routes of entry are not worth considering. tion of radioactivity covering much greater areas. Radioactive cesium could be volatilized but not to the Afeat. Nicat and meat products would be considered extent of iodine. Radioactive strontium is less apt to be by a case-by-case evaluation according to the PAGs. released. The noble gases krypton and xenon and the Eggs. As eggs would contribute minor amounts of heavy metals such as uranium and plutonium are not contamination to the food chain, these would not be a absorbed and retained by humans and animals so they problem. Furthermore, chickens are housed in buildings are of no real threat to agricultural food chains to that could provide shielding from most aerial con-humans. tamination and their feed likely would have been pro-Countermeasures for the agricultural community cessed and stored before an accident. would consist of removing all milk-producing animals General. If 1 s the only radionuclide which ex-from pasture and giving stored feed where PAG action 131 ceeds PAGs, then storage until safe would be a solution is required. h1 ilk above safe levels would be stored until to this problem. Also, contaminated food products safe, diverted to other uses or simply dispersed with could be diverted and fed to livestock other than cows waste water. Fresh leafy vegetables could be washed, producing milk. outer leaves removed or destroyed if levels are unsafe. Don't panic. Emotional outbursts by pseudoexperts Good judgement and a cool head would be helpfulin and unconfirmed rumors should be ignored. Good times when a few doomsday prophets are flooding the judgement should be used and local agricultural leaders media with rumors and data which are not applicable to are easily in contact with radionuclide experts. Food nuclear reactor ac'cidents. 12

LITERATURE CITED 1. Agres, Ted.1980. EPA says coal a hazard. Indus-

19. Eisenbud, Merril.1%3. Distribution of radio-trial Research and Development 22:47,48.

activity in foods. Fed. Proc., Part One. 2. Anonymous.1957. Accident at Windscale No. I 22:1410-1414. Pile on 10th October 1957. Presented to Parlia-

20. EPA.1977. Radiation quality of environment in ment by the Prime Minister by Command of U.S. Office of Rad. Prog. Washington, DC.

her Majesty November 1957. Command 302. 26

21. Grimes, Brian K. and Robert G. Ryan (co-p.

chairmen),1980.' Criteria for preparation and 3. Anonymous. 1959. They survived the atom. evaluation of radiological emergency response Newsweek 53:57. 2 March 1959. plans and preparedness in support of nuclear 4. Anonymous.1960a. USDA Radiological Training power plants. NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1. Manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture

22. Haaland, C. M.1979. Levels of natural and man.

Agricultural Research Service. Issued Feb. made nuclear radiation. Amer. Civil Defense 1960, Revised July 1%1. 226 p. Assoc. Tech. Rpt. I Feb. 5. Anonymous.1960b. The unique experiment at

23. Halsey, David.1980a. We felt very safe. Dairy Vinca. Power Engineering 64:48-51. October Herd Management 17 No. 4, p. 36. March.

1960.

24. Halsey, David.1980b. Feelings about nukes un-6.

Anonymous.1966. Mouse offspring fail to suffer changed. Dairy Herd Management 17 No. 4, after mutagenic radiation to parent. JAMA

p. 44. March.

198:43.12 Dec.1966.

25. Halsey, David.1980c. Reactors cover the dairy 7.

Anonymous.1979. Animal Production and Food belt. Dairy Herd Management 17 No. 4, p. 50. s Consumptior., 1973-78. Feedstuffs Reference March. Issue 51 No. 29, p. 9. 23 July 1979.

26. Hamilton, L. D.1%3. Somatic effects. Nucle-8.

Anonymous.1980. World list of nuclear power onics. 21:48. March. plants - operable, under construction, or on

27. Hollander, Ron.1980. Mud, glorious mud. Town order (30 MWe and over) as of December 31, and Country. April.

1979. Nuclear News 23:67.

28. Kemeny, J. G.1979. The President's Commission 9.

Auraldsson, H.A., L. Ekman, A. Erikson and U. on the Accident at TMI. U.S. Printing Office, Greitz.1971. A simultaneous study on the Washington, DC 20p. transfer of radioiodine from pasture to milk

29. Krieg Dieter.1979. What "Three Mile Island" and from a single oral intake to milk. Research meant to dairymen. Hoard's Dairyman.10 July Institute of National Defence (sic) Report, 1979. p. 787.

Stockholm, Sweden, Nov.1971,5 p.

30. Lenihan, J. M. A.1959. The scientific basis of

10. Bell, M. C.1971. Radiation effects on farm ani-the radiation hazard. Proc. Nutr. Soc.18:34.

mals: a review. Atomic Fnstgy Commission

31. Leonard, A., M. Delpoux, G. Decal and E. D.

Symposium Series 24. December. p. 656-669. Leonard. 1979. Natural radioactivity in

11. Bell, M.C. and A. C. Blake.1976. Fallout facts southwest France and its possible genetic conse-for milk producers. RCD-14. January.

quences for mammals. Rad. Res. 77:170-181.

12. Bishop, Tom. 1959. The Windscale atomic

32. McBride, J. P., R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon piles. Metal Progress 76:105-9.

and R. E. Blanco.1978. Radiologicalimpcct of

13. Bodansky, David.1980. Electricity ger:eration airborne effluents of coal and nuclear power.

choices for the near term. Science 207:721-727. Science 202:1045-1050.

14. Brown, Daniel G.1975. Physiologic responses to

33. Miller, J. K., E. W. Swanson and G. E. Spalding.

esercise of irradiated and nonirradiated 1975. Iodine absorption, excretion, recycling, Sh:tland ponies: a five. year study. Am. J. Vet. and tissue distribution in the dairy cow. J. Res. 36:645. May. Dairy Sci. 58:1578-1593.

15. Burnett, Toby, ed.1980. Nuclear Legislative Ad-

34. Morgan, Karl Z.1%9. Acceptable risk concepts.

visory Service Issue 24S. 25 Feb.1980. Amer. Nuclear Soc., Pittsburg, Penn. section.

16. Chamberlain, A. C. and H. J. Dunster.1958.

lecture.18 November 1%9. 25 p. Deposition of radioactivity in northwest 35. Park. A. D. and Frank A. Todd.1%5. Nuclear ac-England from the accident at Windscale. cidents and our food supply. Amer. Vet. Med. Nature 182:629-30. Assoc. speech, Portland, OR 12 July 1%5.

17. Comar, C. L.1965. Movemmt of fallout radio-

36. Sagan, Leonard A., ed. 1974. Human and nuclides through the biosphere and man. An-Ecological Effects of Nuclear Power Plants, nual Review Nuclear Science 15:175-206.

Charles C. Thomas: Springfie!d, IL. p. 529.

18. Eichholz, Geoffrey G.1976. in Environmental

37. Sasser, L. B. and C. A. Hawley, Jr.1966. Secre-Aspects of Nuclear Power. Ann Arbor Science tion of 1131 into milk under conditions of en-Publishers, Inc.: Ann Arbor, MI p. 315.

vironmental contamination of pasture. J. Dairy Sci. 49:1505-1510. 13

38. Savic, P.1959. Yugoslavian criticality accident,

43. Thompson, J. C., Jr.1%7. Reconsideration of October 15, 1958. Nucleonics.17:106 +.

the 1311odine contribution from fruits and

39. Shleien, B., G. D. Schmidt and R. P. Chiac-vegetables. Health Physics 13:883-887.

chierini.1977. Supporting Documentation for 44. United Nations.1977. Sources and Effects of Proposed Response Recommendations in Case Ionizing Radiation. UN Scientific Committee. of the Accidental Radiation Contamination of NY 725 p. Food and Animal Feeds. Dept. of HEW, FDA,

45. Wahlen, Martin,. Charles O. Kunz, John M.

Bureau of Radiological Health. December 9 Matuszek, William E. Mahoney and Reger C. 1977. Corrected May 23,1978. Thompson.1980. Radioactive plume from the

40. Simon, J. L.1980. Resources, population, en.

Three Mile Island accident: xenon-133 in air at vironment: an oversupply of false bad news. a distance of 375 kilometers. Science Science 208:1431. 207:639 +.

41. Sutow, W. W., R. A. Conrad and K. M. Griffith.

46. Ward, Gerald M.1%1. Our industry today -

1%5. Growth status of children exposed to probems of milk supply associated with possi-fallout radiation on Marshall Islands. ble nuclear reactor accidents. J. Dairy Sci. Pediatrics 36:721. 44:1958-l % 1.

42. Tamplin, Arthur R. 1%5.1-131, I-133, and cow

47. Wilson, Richard.1973. The AEC and the lots milk. University of California Biomedical of coolant accident. Nature 241:217-230.

Research Division, Lawrence Radiation Lab.,

48. Windholz, Martha, ed.1976. Xenon. The Merck I ivermore, CA, AEC contract No. W-7405-eng Index, Ninth edition. Merek and Co.: Ralway, 48.10 April 1965.

NJ.

49. Wodicka, Virgil O.1980. Risk and responsi-bility. Nutrition Reviews. 38:45-52.

I 14

. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Background - the radiation in man's natural environ-Rad - the standard unit of absorbed dose, equal to . mint, including cosmic rays and radiation from the ' energy absorption of 100 ergs per gram (0.01 joule per niturally radioactive elements kilogram); supersedes the roentgen as the unit of dosage Core - the active portion of a nuclear reactor, contain-Radioactive - giving off, or capable of giving off, ra-; ing the fissionable material. ~diant energy in the form of particles or rays, as alpha, a beta and gamma rays, by the spontaneous disintegration Critical-capable of sustaining a chain reaction at a - of atomic nuclei-constant level Radioactive decay - the spontaneous transformation Criticalreactor-a nuclear reactor in which the ratio of of a nuclide into oac or more different nuclides, accom-moderator to fuel is either suberitical or just critical panied by either the emission of particles from the nucleus, nuclear capture or ejection of orbital electrons, Curie (Ci) - the unit used in measuring radioact:vity, or fission equ 1 to the quantity of any radioactive material in which the number of disintegrations per second is 3.7 x Radioiostope - a' naturally occurring or artificially - ION created radioactive isotope of a chemical element Dosimeter - an instrument that measures the total dose Rem - a unit ofionizing radiation, equal to the amount of nuclear radiation received in a given period that produces the -same damage to humans as one roentgen of high-voltage X-rays; derived from roentgen Fission - the splitting of an atomic nucleus into.two equivalent man (rem) parts of approximately equal size, accompanid by the conversion of part of the mass into energy Roentgen - the international unit of quantity used in. measuring ionizing radiation, as X-rays or gamma rays, l Fission product - any radioactive or stable nuclide equal to the quantity of radiation that will produce, in i ~ resulting from fission, including both primary fission 0.001293 grams (I cc) of dry air at 0*C and 760 mm I fragments and their radioactive decay products mercury pressure, ions carrying one electrostatic unit of l c'ectricity of either sign; abbreviated as R or r I Lethaldose 30 (LD-50) - the dose of a substance which is fttal to 50% of a speci_fic group Supercritical reactor - a nuclear reactor in which the effective multiplication constant is greater than one and Metric abbreviations consequently a reactor that is increasing its power level; i 1,000 millicuries (mci) = 1 Ci (Curie) if uncontrolled, a sup-critical reactor will undergo a 1,000 microcuries (uCi) = 1 mci sudden and dangerous iise in power level 1,000 nanocuries (nCi) = 1 uCi 1,000 picoeuries.(pCi) = 1 nCi Zero-popr reactor - an experimental nuclear reactor operated at low neutron flux and at a power level so low Nuclear reactor - a device containing fissionable that no forced cooling is required; fission product ac-mIterial in sufficient quantity and so arranged as to be tivity in the fuelis then sufficiently low to permit handl-ctpable of mainta'ning a controlled, self-sustaining ing of the fuel after use nuclear fission chain reaction - 15 I i nu -}}