Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

In February 2003, the IAEA established the Chernobyl Forum, in cooperation with seven other UN organisations as well as the competent authorities of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In April 2005, the reports prepared by two expert groups – "Environment", coordinated by the IAEA, and "Health", coordinated by WHO – were intensively discussed by the Forum and eventually approved by consensus. The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006i) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 reportj which said that "apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure." As yet there is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. However, these workers – where high doses may have been received – remain at increased risk of cancer in the long term. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) says that "the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure."

The Chernobyl Forum report says that people in the area have suffered a paralysing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some "took on the role of invalids." Mental health coupled with smoking and alcohol abuse is a very much greater problem than radiation, but worst of all at the time was the underlying level of health and nutrition. Apart from the initial 116,000, relocations of people were very traumatic and did little to reduce radiation exposure, which was low anyway. Psycho-social effects among those affected by the accident are similar to those arising from other major disasters such as earthquakes, floods and fires.

Arnie Gunderson, a veteran US nuclear engineer and director of Fairewinds Energy Education, told Reuters that "they are going to have difficulty in removing a significant number of the rods," especially given their close proximity to each other, which risks breakage and the release of radiation.

Gundersen told Reuters of an incredibly dangerous “criticality” that would result if a chain reaction takes place at any point, if the rods break or even so much as collide with each other in the wrong way. The resulting radiation is too great for the cooling pool to absorb – it simply has not been designed to do so.

"The problem with a fuel pool criticality is that you can't stop it. There are no control rods to control it,” Gundsersen said. “The spent fuel pool cooling system is designed only to remove decay heat, not heat from an ongoing nuclear reaction."

In April 2010, Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups, released a report which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the containment structure steel liner. In the AP1000 design, the liner and the concrete are separated, and if the steel rusts through, "there is no backup containment behind it" according to Gundersen.[15] If the dome rusted through the design would expel radioactive contaminants and the plant "could deliver a dose of radiation to the public that is 10 times higher than the N.R.C. limit" according to Gundersen. Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for Westinghouse, has disputed Gundersen’s assessment, stating that the AP1000's steel containment vessel is three-and-a-half to five times thicker than the liners used in current designs, and that corrosion would be readily apparent during routine inspection.

Aren't fuel pools borated?

Aren't fuel pools borated?

The idea that as the radioactive isotopes are spread out the dose rates drop rapidly seems to escape some of the anti-nuke commentators so they seem to treat the release of them from Fukushima as a biological hazard and not a radiological. viruses and bacteria can multiply out in the environment, but the more you spread out radioactive material the less of a hazard it is, to the point where it's probably a health benefit if you look at some of the links like Kiteman posts..

Abstract
Of the 500,000 immigrants from the former Soviet Union who came to Israel during 1990-1993, about 100,000 are estimated to have come from radiocontaminated areas near Chernobyl. These people were subject to chronic uptake of environmental radiocesium over protracted periods. During October-November 1991, a joint Israeli-Canadian investigation measured radiocesium body burdens in immigrants to Israel from the Ukraine, Belarus, and the southern Russian republic in order to provide factual information on radiocesium levels to concerned immigrants and to relate the body burdens to the geographic area of residence before coming to Israel. Assessments were made of 137Cs body burdens in 1,228 volunteer men, women, and children. These measurements were accompanied by medical assessments based on clinical histories and examinations. Radiocesium levels were strongly dependent on the duration of residence in Israel, with the highest levels being found in the most recent immigrants. The maximum level, extrapolated back to the time of leaving the former Soviet Union, was estimated to be about 0.83 kBq (10.3 Bq kg-1). Of the most recent immigrants from the Kiev region (< 101 days in Israel), only 15% had back extrapolated body burdens > 50 Bq, whereas 53% of those coming from Gomel and other towns in the contaminated zones (> 3.7 x 10(10) Bq km-2 of radiocesium) had detectable levels > 50 Bq. People coming from the latter region had significantly higher body burdens as compared to those from the former, in accordance with the higher degree of ground radiocesium contamination reported for the latter region. Women and children showed considerably lower total radiocesium content in comparison to men. All radiocesium body burdens at the time of measurement were too low to be of health concern.

Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer. Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout. Exposure to waste materials, from contaminated sites, or from nuclear accidents can result in cancer risks much higher than typical environmental exposures.

Because of the high reactivity of the metal, toxicological data are available only for compounds.[23] Water-soluble barium compounds are poisonous. At low doses, barium ions act as a muscle stimulant, whereas higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis. This may be due to the ability of Ba2+ to block potassium ion channels, which are critical to the proper function of the nervous system.[24] Other target organs for water-soluble barium compounds (i.e., barium ions) are eyes, immune system, heart, respiratory system, and skin.[23] They affect the body strongly, causing, for example, blindness and sensitization.[23]

Barium is not carcinogenic,[23] and it does not bioaccumulate.[25][26]