In the final days of last year, the national nuclear energy working group published its final report, which explores the possibilities of adopting nuclear energy in Estonia. In May, the Riigikogu began discussions on a bill to support the adoption of nuclear energy.

The discussions are gaining momentum and becoming increasingly substantive. However, concerns about the health impacts and environmental footprint of modern nuclear energy persist. Let's discuss three sources of these fears: radiation, radioactive waste and the historical legacy of nuclear accidents.

Radiation

Nuclear facilities are often feared because of radiation concerns. In reality, the radiation dose received by a person living near an operating nuclear power plant does not significantly differ from that of the average citizen. The average annual radiation dose for a person is approximately three millisieverts (mSv), primarily caused by various natural sources of radiation: inhalation of radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, the effect of radioactive elements in the Earth's crust and cosmic radiation.

A person living a few kilometers from a modern nuclear power plant receives an additional dose of about 0.001 mSv per year. This is smaller than the dose from a single dental X-ray.

It is a little-known fact that the additional dose for a person living near an operating coal-fired power plant is several orders of magnitude higher. This is due to the natural radioactive elements in coal that are released into the atmosphere during combustion.

The same phenomenon applies to oil shale. In the early 2000s, it was estimated that the additional dose near Estonia's oil shale power plants could reach up to 0.02 mSv per year. The reduction in oil shale electricity production and better filters to reduce air emissions have improved the situation over the past 20 years.

Radioactive waste

Radioactive waste generated in nuclear power plants is categorized into high-level, intermediate-level and low-level waste. The primary high-level radioactive waste in a nuclear power plant is spent nuclear fuel, which is why this type of waste is often simply referred to as nuclear waste.

Intermediate and low-level waste is produced during the operation of a nuclear facility when neutrons released during nuclear fission irradiate materials surrounding the reactor core. Consequently, the reactor vessel becomes radioactive. An example of low-level waste includes protective clothing worn by personnel that has come into contact with radioactive material.

In discussions about nuclear energy, nuclear waste often garners the most attention. Today, geological disposal is considered the best method for managing this waste. But how did the idea of burying nuclear waste deep underground come about?

In fact, nature has demonstrated a working solution. On the west coast of Africa, in Gabon, lies the Oklo uranium mine, where two billion years ago a natural "nuclear reactor" operated – a natural occurrence of uranium-235 fission reactions similar to those used today in nuclear energy production.

Such a natural situation can no longer occur because the proportion of uranium-235 in natural uranium has decreased significantly due to radioactive decay. Nonetheless, nature has inadvertently provided us with an experiment in the storage of high-level radioactive waste that has lasted for two billion years.

Of course, the storage of nuclear waste is not an easy task. According to geological experts, there are areas within Estonia's geological bedrock that have suitable conditions for waste storage, although detailed bedrock studies are definitely needed to establish a final disposal site. The biggest concern is the potential movement of radioactive substances from the waste packages and their possible entry into groundwater.

Our northern neighbors have made the most progress in geological disposal of nuclear waste. The Finns began geological studies in the 1980s and have developed a well-thought-out solution over 40 years, which is set to become operational this decade.

If Estonia decides to proceed with the adoption of nuclear energy, the final report of the nuclear energy working group suggests that the first nuclear reactor could start operating in about a decade. The estimated lifespan of a nuclear power plant is 60 years. This means we have around 70 years to gather knowledge and conduct detailed studies to find a safe solution for the final disposal of nuclear waste.

We are currently dealing with the management of intermediate and low-level radioactive waste in Estonia, as the country inherited two nuclear reactors from the Soviet Union located in Paldiski, the former Soviet Navy's nuclear submarine training center. Although the spent nuclear fuel was removed and sent to Russia in 1995, Estonia is responsible for the safe final disposal of the reactor vessels and securing the financial resources for this work.

Therefore, we do not have to start from scratch when it comes to handling radioactive waste if we initiate a nuclear energy program. The key difference is that modern nuclear energy best practices include incorporating a certain amount in the electricity price to cover waste management. This way, a national fund is accumulated during the operation of the nuclear power plant, which finances the management of radioactive waste and the dismantling of the facility.

Historical fears

The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 remains deeply ingrained in the collective memory of Estonians. It's understandable, considering nearly 5,000 Estonian men were compelled to participate in the cleanup efforts without a clear understanding of what had happened, let alone thorough briefings.

A decade ago, a doctoral dissertation at the University of Tartu examined the health of Chernobyl veterans from the Baltic countries (a total of 17,000 men). The study found that those who were among the first to be sent to Chernobyl had a higher incidence of thyroid cancer compared to the general male population of the Baltic States. The incidence of other cancers and overall mortality was the same among Chernobyl veterans as it was in the general male population of the Baltic States. However, Chernobyl veterans experienced higher rates of depression, mental and behavioral disorders and risky behaviors such as alcoholism and suicidal tendencies, driven by ignorance and fear.

We have also witnessed fear leading to overreactions in the context of the war in Ukraine. Military activities near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have caused people in Estonia to demand iodine tablets from pharmacies.

Taking potassium iodide tablets can indeed help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer if one is exposed to radioactive iodine. However, this is only effective if taken immediately after an accident within the immediate impact radius of the nuclear facility, typically within a 30 km radius of a large nuclear power plant. Taking potassium iodide as a precaution is more likely to be harmful, as it can cause hyperthyroidism.

The potassium dose from the tablet can lead to hyperkalemia, causing heart rhythm disturbances or muscle weakness. Fortunately, Estonia's competent authorities – the climate and radiation department of the Environmental Board and the State Agency of Medicines – have provided clarifications on this issue to prevent overreaction driven by ignorance.

Siiri Salupere is a radiation protection researcher and lecturer at the University of Tartu's Institute of Physics. She earned her Ph.D. in Environmental Technology from the University of Tartu. Salupere's research focuses on the radioactivity of the Estonian environment.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!