Will the development of nuclear energy save the environment? The issue is increasingly being discussed by politicians, scientists and ordinary citizens around the world. Experts from influential agencies, such as the IAEA, many US research centers, and some countries, believe that it is impossible to stop climate change and save humankind without developing this kind of energy. Their opponents, including a number of nongovernmental organizations, such as Women in Europe for a Common Future and Greenpeace, as well as the green parties in various European countries, are opposing nuclear development and claim that each euro invested in energy efficiency and some forms of renewable energy can ensure a drop in greenhouse gas emissions that is 11 times greater than that which results from the use of nuclear energy. As the international community is debating, most countries can wait no more. What prompts most countries to build nuclear power plants is the aspiration for energy independence from foreign oil and gas. For example, Belarus, which has built a nuclear power plant, views this as a possibility of political freedom from Russian interference. Time will show whether Ukraine will benefit from building new atomic energy units in partnership with Russia. Has humanity learned the lessons of Chornobyl and what was the real scale of the disaster? What are the dangers of nuclear development and what will our descendants do with the legacy of nuclear waste? What is Chornobyl after all — a zone of exclusion or a development site, as UN and EU experts claim? (These experts recently offered Ukraine a strategy of the socioeconomic development of the Chornobyl region and the exclusion zone. It focuses on the business potential of the contaminated areas.) The Day asked these questions and more to Yurii BONDAR, Candidate of Sciences (Chemistry); Deputy Director for Research of Polissia State Radiation and Ecology Preserve under the Ministry for Emergencies of Belarus (analogous to the Ukrainian zone of exclusion). As a research associate at the specialized Institute of Nuclear Energy at Sosny (near Minsk) 30 years ago, he wrote a feasibility report for a nuclear power plant, following which this plant was built in Lithuania, not in Belarus. He currently supports the intention of his country’s leadership to build a nuclear power plant in Belarus.
HOW ALIEN TO US IS THE ZONE OF ALIENATION?
As one of Belarus’ top experts, what impact do you think the Chornobyl power plant explosion still has on the environment and human health 24 years after the disaster?
“All I can say is that it has been finally proved and recognized in Belarus that the thyroid cancer from which our nationals suffer is connected with Chornobyl. As for the environment, Chornobyl has naturally had a negative effect on it because all pollution has a consequence — both for the environment and for humans, who are part of it. The territory set aside for the Belarusian zone of exclusion became desolate after the evacuation of the populace. We decided to organize the Polissia State Radiation and Ecology Preserve in this area in 1988, which became to be known as the Belarusian sector of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. In 1993 we were given another 800 sq. km. of the unpopulated land, and now our area is 2,162 sq. km. which is a little smaller than the Ukrainian sector of about 2,600 sq. km.
How would you assess the consequences for the local flora and fauna? Has this been studied?
“You know, neither my colleagues nor I have seen any two-headed animals. I have been in your sector of the zone and seen some pine trees that showed the signs of bushiness in growth points at the top of the trunk. In fact, the trunk begins to grow like a shrub, which may be a mutation due to genetic damage. It was in the area of red-colored woodland, which used to be 1.5 km away from the accident-related unit. Effects like this do occur in this area, as the dose was very intensive there.”
What kind of research do you conduct in the preserve?
“As researchers, we study the processes of radionuclide redistribution in the ‘soil-plant’ system, find coefficients of transition from the soil to the plant, classify plants as to the degree of radionuclide accumulation, and explore many other things. It is unreal to make full use of the soil. And when it is suggested that we tackle the problem of the exclusion zone’s rehabilitation, this sounds absurd. It cannot be rehabilitated in practice. It can only be rehabilitated if we cut away the 20-cm-deep upper layer of soil. But what shall we do with it then? It is millions of tons. And what kind of soil will we receive after this rehabilitation? Nothing but sand. So all we can do in our case is watch, continue monitoring, if necessary, and suggest experimental decisions.”
So what do you think one can do on this land?
“The accident occurred in 1986. Ten years later it was decided to resettle the endangered species. We selected 16 European bison in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha forest to be resettled in our reserve. We set up a large enclosure as a bison nursery. We kept the bison in this enclosure for a year until they adapted. Then we opened the fence, and the bison dispersed. But they always come back in winter because they know they will be fed potatoes, beet roots, and compound feeds. We have had 76 bison in the past 14 years. We are considering the settlement of another group of European bison to infuse new blood and prevent incest. The Ukrainian sector has brought in Przewalski’s horses — a few individuals also inhabit our area.”
There is no common view on the Chornobyl aftermath, both in Ukraine and abroad. There are two diametrically opposed viewpoints on Chornobyl: the IAEA and the WHO say that, in addition to 4,000 instances of thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to radiation in childhood and the death of several dozens of clean-up personnel, there are no other clear-cut consequences of the Chornobyl radiation. Many other European organizations and the European Green Party are accusing the IAEA of underrating the disaster’s aftermath. What is the situation in Belarus?
“We, too, have both views, but we are taking a more sober approach. We believe there really are negative consequences for the country. Firstly, the Belarusian nation is numerically smaller than the Ukrainian one — we are only 9.5 million. Secondly, you have a larger territory. Almost a fifth our territory is contaminated. But what is to be considered a contaminated territory? For example, there was — and still is — a global contamination resulting from the 1962-63 nuclear tests. Radionuclides are gradually decaying and declining. Scientists say the level of contamination with Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 was one tenth of a curie per square kilometer.”
Is this much or little? Please explain.
“We believe after the Chornobyl accident that if the density of radio cesium contamination is one curie or less, this may be neglected, even though it is ten times as much as that following the 1963 nuclear tests, when the US, France, Britain, and the USSR flexed their muscles.”
RADIOACTIVE FIREWOOD: DOES UKRAINE NEED A EUROPEAN DECISION OF THIS KIND?
The EU announced recently that Chornobyl is a zone of development, not exclusion. The EU-developed strategy of the socioeconomic development of the Chornobyl region and the exclusion zone puts special emphasis on the business potential of the polluted areas. Do you think Chornobyl is a zone of exclusion or development?
“The question is ambiguous. I would like to take a somewhat different approach to the question of a development zone. I agree to some extent that it is a zone of development, but it depends on our perspective. A nuclear disaster, the greatest in the entire history of mankind, occurred. A reactor blew up. A sheltering facility was built. This is a colossal, extremely bitter experience, this is also a potential for the future. Man has already done something. And should anything of the kind happen again in the future, humanity will face it having accumulated a certain experience. You will now be making a confinement shelter, an arched structure. This is also a unique experience, an asset for the whole of humankind. And the French and Americans are not giving money just to be with it. They are also gaining experience on this. They are sure to set precedents. So, from this viewpoint, it is development. As for agriculture, I think it inadmissible to farm on these lands. One should not farm if the content of Cesium 137 is more than 40 Ci/sqm, that Strontium 90 is above three curies, and plutonium is one tenth, because the soil is cultivated, plowed, sowed over, harvested, and dusted over. One must think about the people who will work there. We still do not fully know the effect of fuel particles that contain alpha-emitters and may penetrate and remain in one’s respiratory apparatus.”
Is Chornobyl an eternal problem due to radioactive emissions? What are we to be afraid of?
“Yes, it is about transuranic elements. For example, four isotopes of plutonium (Pu-238, 239, 240, 241) were discharged. The half-life of the first three of them is 87 to 24,000 years. Let us take the fourth, the least hazardous, of them, Plutonium 241 which is a weak beta-emitter with a half-life of 14 years. It is 24 years since the accident occurred. 70 percent of the original Plutonium 241 has already decayed. But while it is comparatively non-hazardous, it can still generate, by means of beta decay, Americium 241 which is an alpha-emitter similar to the first three isotopes of plutonium. The accumulated Americium 241 already exceeds the overall quantity of the first three isotopes of plutonium. Besides, it is more mobile than plutonium in a natural environment, with a half-life of 430 years.”
Will it reach Kyiv? Should we leave the city?
“No, you don’t have to.”
NUCLEAR ENERGY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RUSSIAN GAS-RELATED BEAR HUGS
Belarus has begun to build a nuclear power plant in Ostrovets, a very green and beautiful place, where there is a low risk of earthquakes and a good access to water. What do you think about building a nuclear power plant in Belarus in terms of the economy, safety, and ecology, and with due account of the Chornobyl lessons?
“Let me tell you a story connected with the Ignalin nuclear power plant. Why has there been no nuclear station in Belarus until now? The question of building a nuclear power plant in Belarus was first mulled over when Pyotr Masherov was First Secretary of the Belarusian Communist Party Committee. Masherov was reluctant to station a high-risk and sophisticated facility on the republic’s territory. He requested the president of the Soviet Belarus academy of sciences to submit a feasibility report to the effect that it is undesirable to build an atomic station in Belarus. Back then I was working at the Institute of Nuclear Energy. The laboratory chief instructed me to draw up the feasibility report. I drew up the original substantiation report which was then brushed up and modified many times. For some reason, the nuclear station was never built in Belarus at the time. They built one in Ignalin, Lithuania. In other words, my modest efforts also helped to avoid building an atomic plant in our republic. But, as time goes by, you develop gray hair and a bald spot, and you change your philosophy of life. This means you acquire experience and begin to stay closer to economic matters. As of today, energy generation in Belarus is 93 percent based on Russian gas.
“You already know what ‘the gas issue’ is. This raises the question: to what extent are we, a small republic, independent—regardless of who the next president will be? So I consider it justifiable to secure energy independence now. When the Chornobyl and Ignalin nuclear power plants functioned, we would exchange and offset the shortage of energy. But these plants have been decommissioned, and we are facing a difficult problem of whether or not to build a nuclear station of our own. There was a moratorium on construction—not only in our country but all over Europe. But life demands changes. The safety system has been improved, units are now more reliable. So I support the construction of a nuclear power plant.”
And where will you find the six billion to build a nuclear power plant?
“We will take loans—from Russia once more.”
But this will mean even greater dependence on Russia.
“Yes, but the energy will be ours in the long term.”
PEACEFUL ATOM WASTES AS A LEGACY TO OUR DESCENDANTS
But do you support the construction of a nuclear power plant only because this may provide an opportunity for Belarus’ economic and, hence, political independence?
“I think so. As far as radioecology is concerned, we will have to find energy somewhere. When you burn Donetsk coal, the emissions exceed those of a nuclear plant. I am not talking here about the wastes which will have to be ‘buried’ somewhere. It is a difficult and long-term problem, and its inadequate solution may affect the entire planet. The used fuel is so far being stored, controlled, and partially recycled to be further used in medicine, civil construction, and industry.”
Ukraine annually loses two billion dollars because of non-insulated buildings. All the renewable energy sources generate a mere 0.5 percent of required energy, which is an extremely low level. The introduction of household energy saving programs and development of renewable energy can reduce dependence on Russian gas by 60 percent. Has Belarus conducted a study of the potential of energy sources other than nuclear energy?
“We utilize alternative sources, but they are insufficient. We do not use gas in our research center, we burn firewood. But if we cut down all the trees, where shall we take oxygen from? As for wind energy, I saw a lot of wind turbines on riverbanks and hills near Narva, Estonia. It is a solution of sorts. I once read about English calculations that the full energy spent on making wind power plant units equals the energy they can generate on the basis of their own resource.”
There is a popular view now that it is impossible to save the environment without the development of nuclear energy. The opponents of nuclear development think it is a deadlock and call for using alternative sources. What do you think?
“I think it is possible, but it will be of no interest for humankind. One can give up electricity, airplanes, automobiles and many other things and switch to subsistence production: you consume what you make. This kind of life will suit nobody today. We live in a different world. Alternative sources of energy will not meet all our needs. Nuclear energy can save the environment by reducing CO2 emissions into the air. An interesting thing is going on in Britain and France. When a question came up whether or not to build nuclear power plants, Britain launched a long debate on whether it is good or bad. The debate involved everybody, the public, parliament, etc. Meanwhile, the French set up several nuclear plants along the English Channel. They are now generating energy, and the wind rose forces all emissions to fly towards England.”
What is the main lesson of Chornobyl?
“Only professionals must handle the equipment. Governments should react instantly instead of bringing people into the streets. Chornobyl was a human error: a number of wrong decisions were made, which led to such a terrible disaster.”
A question of life philosophy: if man does not develop nuclear energy, could he go back to primeval times? What should be the limit in the ‘man-nature’ relationship, which man must not transgress so that nature does not wreak vengeance upon him?
“It’s a problematic issue. It is not so easy to answer it when you are sitting at the table.
“There should be a balance: man should feel comfortable in a sound environment, and the natural environment should respond in kind. Man cannot be healthy in a sick natural environment. I am for a parity-based relationship. Humans are the most vulnerable biological creature on Earth. As biological individuals, we are running the greatest risks of ending up on the receiving end. Should things go bad, this will, first of all, hurt human beings.”
