The energy consumption of the agricultural and food industry is not very high compared to other sectors. But without a reliable energy supply, there is nothing left to eat, especially in urban regions, regardless of whether the energy is needed to produce fertiliser, process grain, cool fish and fruit or for distribution. Without energy for agriculture and the food industry, people are starving. Udo Pollmer lets a breath of fresh air whistle through the media fog on energy policy.

by  Udo Pollmer May 30, 2024

We need smart solutions. For example, for the energy required to produce and prepare food. Due to our digestive tract, we humans can...

...only live on natural food to a limited extent and cannot gobble down raw and alive in one piece a mouse like a stork. But where do we get this energy from in view of the nuclear phase-out? This will put an end to a so-called "high-risk technology", one that produces waste that radiates for hundreds of thousands of years and threatens humanity for all eternity.

Even the name "Fukushima" causes sheer horror in faraway Germany. According to our quality media, the "nuclear disaster" has cost around 20,000 lives.¹ That was the straw that broke the camel's back. A distant flash of light from Japan sealed the fate of the once mighty nuclear power industry in Germany.

However, the 20,000 dead were all victims of the seaquake, whose tidal wave was up to 40 metres high and buried everything beneath it. At the power station, the tsunami was still 15 metres high, destroying part of the plant. Fortunately, there were no radiation fatalities, even though one case of lung cancer has been attributed to the accident. In addition, our media are spreading the word that the rate of thyroid tumours in children has increased 15-fold, but they know nothing about this in Japan.²

Do you remember the giant that appears on the horizon in the popular story for children, Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver, who gets smaller and smaller the closer he gets? On the spot, he turns out to be a mock giant and a friendly contemporary at that. Before we capitulate to the feeling of hopelessness, let's try to look the danger in the eye. Perhaps its menacing appearance will fade the closer we get?

Irradiated sardines, irradiated heads

"Fukushima is contaminating the world's oceans", the internet was buzzing, claiming that they are doomed as the retention basins of the damaged power plant are now to be emptied.³ These pools were used to collect the seawater that was used to cool the destroyed reactors and fuel elements. Over one million tonnes of contaminated water now threaten life in the ocean. The first warning signs were dead sardines that had washed up on the coast of Hokkaido.⁴

Now it is nothing special when dead sardines land there and even freeze. Not because they have fallen off a fishing vessel as sea frost, but because there are sometimes unexpected cold snaps in the sea there. These fish do not survive this. Washed ashore, they can freeze in winter. The oldest report I found dates back to 1939 - the dead sardines were lying two metres high as flotsam along the coast.⁵ Decades before Fukushima.

It was mainly Germany that was contaminated - through propaganda. For Fukushima, it is easy to calculate from the fuel rods in the affected reactors that there were a good 250 tonnes of uranium there. However, because uranium dioxide is hardly soluble in water (in contrast to easily soluble cesium), only a fraction of this, perhaps a few kilos ended up in the Pacific Ocean. According to our environmental experts, this little bit will not only contaminate the Pacific, but all the world's oceans. For comparison: Three years before Fukushima, there was an "incident" at the Tricastin nuclear power plant in the south of France. Water containing 224 kilograms of uranium leaked out. 74 kilograms ended up in nearby bodies of water.⁶ To this day, nobody is interested.

There are already over four billion tonnes of orphaned, soluble uranium lurking around in the sea. Without human help. By nature. This is because uranium is initially a natural substance that occurs everywhere in small quantities. As the reserves in the sea are virtually inexhaustible, physicists have suggested extracting this element from salt water.⁷ Compared to the four billion tonnes, the tiny quantities from Japan are not very impressive, even in the worst-case scenario. Marine life will not perish. But the "activists" are speculating on ignorance, their congenial ally.

The contamination of the soil around Fukushima with uranium is also unspectacular; the isotopes still correspond to the natural occurrence.⁸ However, the different kinds of dust that escaped during the accident was explosive. They contained "hot particles" of cesium, occasionally also uranium and plutonium. If they are inhaled, they can cause considerable damage to the lungs.^9-12

Cancer death by photons

The reactor in Fukushima also contained MOX fuel elements, i.e. one containing plutonium. In principle, this is not to be trifled with. Fortunately, the amount that escaped was only one 10,000th of what was released into the environment at Chernobyl. No contamination with plutonium was detected in the sea off Fukushima.^10,13,14 However, traces are to be expected in the decay pool, along with other undesirable fission products. There are 64 in total, many of which have already decayed.

Nevertheless, the water collected from Fukushima was purified to remove all radionuclides, apart from the carbon isotope ¹⁴C and tritium. In nature, both are produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation and reach the earth and the sea surface via rain. As tritium is a variant of hydrogen, i.e. it forms H₂O, i.e. water, with atmospheric oxygen. Water molecules containing tritium can hardly be separated from normal water.

Tritium radiation is very weak: in water, ß-radiation is stopped after just a few thousandths of a millimetre; it also cannot penetrate the upper layers of the skin. It enters the body when drinking tap or mineral water. Because it is a component of water molecules, there is no accumulation, not even in sea fish, because water does not accumulate. The EU Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC sets an upper limit of 100 becquerels of tritium per litre. In Fukushima wastewater, the limit is 1,500 Bq/litre. This value is again lower than the WHO limit of 10,000 Bq/litre.¹⁵

Tritium can become problematic in very high doses. If large quantities are released into the environment, it is incorporated by plants via photosynthesis into organic molecules, which can be absorbed when eaten.¹⁶ To categorise the risk: The above-ground nuclear tests around 1963 added another 550 kilos to the global 4 kilos of cosmic origin. Since then, considerable quantities have been released by nuclear power plants and reprocessing facilities.^15,17 One consumer of tritium is the military, as it can be used to increase the destructive power of nuclear weapons.¹⁸

On the internet, the "activists" are unstoppable, as Fukushima contaminates the world's oceans with tritium. Anyone who doesn't know what an ocean is is impressed by "1.3 billion litres" in the retention basin. Instead of asking how many kilos of the hazardous substance are in those billions of litres! There are a lousy 2.2 grams of tritium in total. Of this, 62 milligrams are to be released into the Pacific every year.¹⁹ So what?

No matter how small the risk from the purified wastewater in Fukushima may be, in many editorial offices it leads either to the end of the world or even worse to cancer: "Even the smallest possible dose, a photon that passes through a cell nucleus, harbours a cancer risk", Deutsche Welle trumpeted to the world.²⁰ In addition to tritium, there are probably also photons in the water - how terrible! Photons are colloquially known as "light". A photon is its smallest physical unit - far too weak to be seen with the naked eye. But it causes cancer! The sun, our central photon emitter, even cancels the water in Fukushima! Only in the darkness of the deep sea are fish really protected from melanoma.

"South Korea wants to take action against the water release from Fukushima before a world tribunal", report the protectors of the world's oceans.⁴ What are "world tribunals" supposed to do against a "water release"? For a better future for our children? Hardly. But the companies have understood. When they "donate", they miraculously get out of the public firing line, regardless of whether they are energy suppliers or gummy bear manufacturers. A business principle that is as inconspicuous as it is lucrative, it could have been invented by the Mafia.

Oceans: Where is the uranium?

It is not so easy to "radioactively" contaminate an ocean because the main pollutants such as cesium or uranium are much heavier than water. This means that the majority of these compounds tend to sink to the bottom. The artificial cesium isotope137 from Chernobyl is no longer found on the surface in the sediments of the Baltic Sea, but has sunk up to 8 cm deep into the seabed. Particularly in sandy subsoils, it behaves like gold in a river. The greatly increased cesium levels in the German Bight (North Sea) were also back within normal limits a few months after Chernobyl. They fell from 1,100 Bq/m³ to 2 Bq/m³.²¹

This is the reason why no radioactivity was found in fish off Fukushima, except in those that live on the seabed or on reefs and forage there, such as rays.^22,23 There was also no accumulation of cesium-134 & -137 in animals at the end of the food chain such as sharks, sea turtles or whales.²⁴

So why isn't the seawater free of elements such as uranium, as these have had enough time to submerge? Simply because new uranium (and other heavy metals) are constantly being washed into the sea through the weathering of the rocks. In seawater, uranium is in equilibrium with the content in the oceanic crust.

As uranium is one of the heaviest elements, it can be assumed that large parts of the earth's uranium sank to the earth's core at a time when the globe was still molten. Alongside thorium and potassium-40, uranium is one of the main producers of geothermal energy, which is constantly "replenished" by radioactive decay. This means that geothermal energy ultimately also utilises nuclear energy.²⁵

The exorbitant levels of cesium in Bavarian wild boar (up to 15,000 Bq/kg) are still as high today as they were 30 years ago, although according to the laws of radioactive decay, half of it should have disappeared by now. The reason: wild boar like to eat deer truffles and their deep mycelium sucks the 60-year-old cesium from the nuclear weapons tests out of the ground. The Chernobyl cesium slowly follows it, so that the levels in wild boar will remain high for some time to come.^26,27

Fukushima: a stroke of luck for propaganda

Today's radiation exposure pales in comparison to the countless radioactive clouds that travelled around the globe every so often in the 1960s. Chernobyl was just a weather glow and Fukushima a mere torch compared to the 2,000 nuclear weapons tests, most of them above ground.²⁸ At that time, the population's exposure to radionuclides was so high that even today the year of birth of those born between 1950 and 1965 can be recognised by the residues in their bones and teeth.^29,30

Anyone who thinks they have to accuse Japan of "radioactive marine pollution" should take a closer look at our reprocessing plants in La Hague and Sellafield. La Hague flushes 150,000 tonnes of contaminated wastewater into the English Channel every year, Sellafield over 3 million into the Irish Sea. The contamination with strontium-90 and plutonium 239 & 240 was higher there than in any other sea.³¹ In 1975 alone, Sellafield released as much cesium into the North Sea as the Chernobyl disaster later released into the Baltic Sea.³² At their peak, both plants released several kilos of the artificial uranium isotope 236 with a half-life of over 20 million years into the sea every year.³³ Because the wastewater from the plants is now purified, the discharge is now much lower. The question remains: where is the stuff now, since it doesn't disappear into thin air?

Then there is all the nuclear waste that was dumped in the sea up until 1994, which is said to have totalled 200,000 barrels.³⁴ According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the worst candidates for using the Atlantic as a dumping ground are Great Britain, followed by Switzerland and the USA.³⁵ In European waters, the old barrels are already rusting through - as residue analyses of fish have shown.³⁶

There is also a lot of radioactivity from the use of crude oil. Oil and gas extraction in the sea contributes to - and I quote the Institute of Fisheries Ecology in Hamburg - "considerable contamination of the North Sea".³⁷ Radiated radium and polonium are especially present in oil and gas deposits.³⁸ Now they are in the fish - but not in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Japan, but on our doorstep. Instead of campaigning against Fukushima, we would do better to worry about our own nuclear waste, regardless of the source.

Let's not exaggerate

Before the Second World War, uranium was popular for the production of glassware and tableware in bright yellow, red and green colours. During the war, civilian use was restricted in favour of the development of nuclear weapons. However, the toxic crockery was still in use for a long time and the quantities of uranium that people ingested with their food were considerable.³⁹

For decades, uranium was extracted not only from ores, but also from rock phosphates. After its price fell on the world market, for example when an abundance of uranium came onto the market after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was no longer worth separating the element. As a result, farmers and hobby gardeners fertilised their land with uranium-containing phosphate, which meant an annual supply of up to 20 g of uranium per hectare.^40,41 The price of the toxic element has been rising again since 2020, meaning that its removal from rock phosphates is likely to become economically viable again.

But none of this interests "activists". They are fighting doggedly against everything that could flow into the sea in Fukushima and contaminate sweet minke whales, tasty sardines and pretty starfish in their minds. In view of the four billion tonnes of uranium in the world's oceans, they would have to panic, quickly bring the fish to dry land, filter the "radiating heavy metal" out of the water and mop up the seabed. Then flood with fresh tap water, put the fish in the water and don't forget to add salt, but only sparingly, please. Where to put the 4,000,000,000 tonnes of marine uranium that would bury half of Germany as a huge dump? Shovel it into "Nuclear power no thanks!" jute bags and put it in the residual waste bin or auction it on eBay?

Radiant chips

In order to categorise the risk posed by long-lived radionuclides, a comparison can be made with the radiation hazard that humans pose through their biological existence. The potassium-40 content of an adult alone emits many thousands of Becquerels. In addition to γ-rays, the isotope primarily emits ß-rays.⁴² According to the German Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg, "beta emitters can damage tissue in the body and cause cancer in the long term."⁴³ Potassium-40 is a genuine natural substance and by no means the result of human activity.

How does this radionuclide get into our bodies? Through food. Among nutritionists, however, the mineral is considered "alkaline" and "healthy". The "Clinic for Nutritional Medicine" at the Technical University of Munich presents its relevant expertise on the internet: "Nuts, vegetables, potatoes, bananas and wholemeal products are particularly rich in potassium." It goes on to say: "In contrast, highly processed foods are low in potassium". So where does the clinic categorise potato crisps

Wrong! According to the clinic, there is more potassium in crisps than in nuts, vegetables and wholegrains. After all, the potato slices are heavily processed, i.e. deep-fried until crispy to remove the water. Trying to determine the potassium content by the "degree of processing" raises strong doubts about the competence.⁴⁴

Charred with coal

Not forgetting the uranium from power stations. Not from nuclear power stations, but from coal-fired power stations. "Over the years there have been many occasions when it was asserted", according to the World Nuclear Association, "that coal-fired power stations emitted more radioactivity into the environment than was released anywhere in the nuclear fuel cycle."⁴⁵ As recently as 2008, the German Federation for Nature Conservation (BUND), which is critical of nuclear power, stated: "Worldwide, lignite and hard coal-fired power plants are considered the largest source of radioactive contamination of the environment next to nuclear power plants."⁴⁶

Coal does indeed contain radionuclides such as uranium, thorium and radium. As around 8 billion tonnes of coal are burned worldwide to generate electricity, the total emissions are estimated at 10,000 tonnes of uranium and 25,000 tonnes of thorium. By way of comparison, a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant produces around 27 tonnes of spent fuel elements every year. A coal-fired power station with the same output produces 270,000 to 400,000 tonnes of ash full of pollutants.^47,48 It has been estimated that the fly ash releases up to 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant with the same output.^49-51

Although coal is considered the "dirtiest" energy source,⁵² emissions have been significantly reduced over the decades thanks to exhaust gas purification technologies.⁵³ Now the filter dust has to be stored safely. For example, by adding them to concrete or asphalt; the risk to citizens is supposedly unknown.⁵⁴ Some isotopes become gaseous during incineration and escape into the environment via the chimney, especially radon, whose contribution has probably been underestimated by several orders of magnitude.⁵⁴ In addition, there are nuclides such as ²⁰⁹lead and the "super poison" ²¹⁰polonium.⁵⁵

In the fight against the danger of radioactive contamination from nuclear power, Germany has reactivated its ancient coal-fired power stations. If you brew your fair-trade coffee, please bear in mind that the electricity may be generated by a mothballed lignite-fired power station - one of the biggest polluters in Europe. Even if exhaust gas purification is retrofitted, these plants remain an environmental mess thanks to their poor efficiency. Germany's energy transition has its price.

References

01) Weß L: 20.000 Strahlentote in Deutschland. Salonkolumnisten 13. März 2021
02) Nakaya T et al: Revisiting the geographical distribution of thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima prefecture: analysis of data from the second- and third-round thyroid ultrasound examination. Journal of Epidemiology 2022; 32 (Suppl 12): S76-S83
03) Anon: Fukushima verstrahlt die Weltmeere: Radioaktive Nahrung selbst in den USA schon über den Grenzwerten! Trends der Zukunft, online 14. Okt. 2013
04) Schreier D: Fukushima und unser radioaktiver Ozean! Schon wieder tote Fische an der Küste von Hokkaido angeschwemmt. Netzfrauen.org 6. Feb. 2022
05) Radovich J: Relationships of some marine organisms of the Northeast Pacific to water temperatures particularly during 1957 through 1959. UC San Diego Fish Bulletin 1961 No. 112
06) Anon: Sicherheitsmängel: Aufsichtsbehörde schließt französische Atomanlage. Spiegel.de vom 11. Juli 2008
07) Chen D et al: Self-standing porous aromatic framework electrodes for efficient electrochemical uranium extraction. ACS Central Science 2023; 9: 2326−2332
08) Murugan R et al: Measurement of uranium isotope ratios in Fukushima-accident contaminated soil samples using multi collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2021; 232: e106568
09) Kaltofen M, Gundersen A: Radioactively-hot particles detected in dusts and soils from Northern Japan by combination of gamma spectrometry, autoradiography, and SEM/EDS analysis and implications in radiation risk assessment. The Science of the Total Environment 2017; 607-608: 1065-1072
10) Wu J et al: Distributions and impacts of plutonium in the environment originating from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident: an overview of a decade of studies. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2022; 248: e106884
11) Kurihara E et al: Particulate plutonium released from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns. Science of The Total Environment 2020; 743: e140539
12) Ochai A et al: Uranium dioxides and debris fragments released to the Environment with cesium-rich microparticles from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Environmental Science & Technology 2018; 52: 2586-2594
13) Hain K et al: Plutonium isotopes (239-241Pu) dissolved in Pacific Ocean waters detected by accelerator mass spectrometry: no effects of the Fukushima accident observed. Environmental Science & Technology 2017; 51: 2031-2037
14) Wendel CCS et al: No Fukushima Dai-ichi derived plutonium signal in marine sediments collected 1.5–57 km from the reactors. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 2017; 129: 180-184
15) Smith J et al: The risks of radioactive wastewater release. Science 2023; 382: 31-33
16) Pettitt E et al: Historical record of tritium from tree cores at the Savannah River Site. Environmental Science: Process Impacts 2022; 24: 1144-1151
17) Laszlo E et al: Estimation of the solar-induced natural variability of the tritium concentration of precipitation in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Atmospheric Environment 2020; 233: e117605
18) Alvarez R: ‘Exploring Tritium’s Danger’: a book review. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 26. June 2023
19) Beck HP: Fukushima tritiated water release – What is the polemic all about? ArXiv:2309.07083v3; 10. Oct 2023
20) Schauenberg T: Atommüll und Fukushima: Endlager Meer. Deutsche Welle vom 11. März 2021
21) Herrmann J, Schmied S: Radioaktive Stoffe in Nord- und Ostsee. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau- und Reaktorsicherheit (Hrsg): Umweltradioaktivität in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn 2015: 50-54
22) Nies H: Fukushima Daiichi: Eintrag radioaktiver Stoffe ins Meer. Nachrichten aus der Chemie 2015; 63: 525-531
23) Little MP et al: Measurement of Fukushima-related radioactive contamination in aquatic species. PNAS 2016; 113: 3720-3721
24) Madigan DJ et al: Assessing Fukushima-derived radiocesium in migratory pacific predators. Environmental Science & Technology 2017; 51: 8962-8971
25) Zahoransky R et al: Geothermie. In: Zahoransky R (eds) Energietechnik. Vieweg+Teubner 2010; 350–367
26) Feng B, Steinhauser G: Das Wildschwein-Paradoxon. Nachrichten aus der Chemie 2023; 71: 56-59
27) Stäger F et al: Disproportionately high contributions of 60 year old weapons-137Cs explain the persistence of radioactive contamination in Bavarian wild boars. Environmental Science & Technology 2023; 57: 13601-13611
28) Kaizer J et al: Sequential scavenging and measurement of seawater radiocesium concentrations and plutonium isotopic ratios offshore Fukushima. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2022; 251-252: e106983
29) Kulp JL, Schulert AR: Strontium-90 in man. Science 1962; 136: 619-632
30) Froidevaux P et al: Long-term effects of exposure to low-levels of radioactivity: a retrospective study of 239pu and 90sr from nuclear bomb tests on the Swiss population. Tsvetkov P (Ed) Nuclear Power - Operation, Safety and Environment. Intechopen.com 2011: 305-326
31) Povinec PP: Worldwide marine radioactivity studies (WOMARS): Radionuclide levels in oceans and seas. IAEA-TECDOC-1429, Wien 2005
32) Fievet B et al: Concentration factors and biological half-lives for the dynamic modelling of radionuclide transfers to marine biota in the English Channel. The Science of the Total Environment 2021; 791: e148193
33) Castrillejo M et al: Unravelling 5 decades of anthropogenic 236U discharge from nuclear reprocessing plants. Science of the Total Environment 2020; 717: e137094
34) Cailloce L: Tracking radioactive barrels in the Atlantic. CNRS News 26. April 2022
35) IAEA: Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea. IAEA-TECDOC-1105, Wien 1999
36) Kanisch G et al: Entweicht Radioaktivität aus den Abfallfässern im nordostatlantischen Versenkungsgebiet? Informationen für die Fischwirtschaft aus der Fischereiforschung 2003; 50: 24-27
37) Rieth U, Kanisch G: Atomtests, Sellafield, Tschernobyl und die Belastung der Meere. ForschungsReport 2011; H.1: 31-34
38) Summerlin J, Prichard HM: Radiological health implications of lead-210 and polonium-210 accumulations in LPG refineries. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1985; 46: 202-205
39) Sheets RW, Turpen SL: Release of uranium and emission of radiation from uranium-glazed dinnerware. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 1998; 235: 167-171
40) Kratz S, Schnug E: Schwermetalle in P-Düngern. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 2005; Sonderheft 286: 37-45
41) Römer W et al: U-238, U-235, Th-232 und Ra-226 in einigen ausgewählten Rohphosphaten, Phosphatdüngern, Boden- sowie Pflanzenproben aus einem P-Düngungsversuch. Journal für Kulturpflanzen 2010; 62: 200–210
42) Jaeck A: K-40. Daten und Eigenschaften des Isotops K-40. Internetchemie.info 4. Dez. 2023
43) DKFZ - Krebsinformationsdienst: Radioaktivität und Strahlung: Quellen, Risiken, Nutzen. Herausgeber: Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum 21. März 2018
44) Hauner H: Kaliumarme Ernährung. Klinik für Ernährungsmedizin, Juni 2010
45) Anon: Naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM). World Nuclear Association, April 2020
46) Jansen D: Radioaktivität aus Kohlekraftwerken. BUND Hintergrund November 2008
47) Abu Darda S et al: A comprehensive review on radioactive waste cycle from generation to disposal. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 2021; 329: 15–31
48) Anon: Radioactive waste Management. World Nuclear Association, updated Oct. 2015
49) Hvistendahl M: Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. Scientific American 2007, 13. Dec.
50) Norasalva Z et al: Radiological impact from airborne routine discharges of coal-fired power plant. Research and Development Seminar 2010, Malaysia
51) Purevsuren B, Kim J: Public health effects of radioactive airborne effluents from nuclear and coal-fired power plant. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations 2021; e6685385
52) Gabbard A: Coal combustion: nuclear resource or danger. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review 1993; 26: 3-4
53) Zeevaert T et al: The radiological impact from airborne routine discharges of a modern coal-fired power plant. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2006; 85: 1-22
54) Papastefanou C: Escaping radioactivity from coal-fired power plants (CPPs) due to coal burning and the associated hazards: a review. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2010; 101: 191-200
55) Krylov DA: Radiation hazard stemming from coal-fired thermal power stations for population and production personnel. Thermal Engineering 2009; 56: 566-569