What will the world after the "Fukushima"? Why can not you live near a nuclear power plant? Is it always right environmentalists and which of them to believe? These questions of "MK" said corresponding member of Russian Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the faction "green" party "Yabloko", Professor Alexey Yablokov.
— What are the consequences of the accident at the nuclear power plant in Japan, you can predict and can we assume that the worst is over?
— Such a nuclear disaster as a "Fukushima" has never happened before. By some measures it worse Chernobyl. In Chernobyl was one reactor emergency, but here are four of the reactor and the spent fuel pool. That is a critically dangerous condition several times more radioactive material. In addition, in the third reactor — MOX (uranium-plutonium) fuel, which previously has not been an accident. The half-life of plutonium — 24,000 years, a period of complete collapse — more than 250,000 years. Strontium-137 decays in 300 years, cesium-90 — also for 300 years, and plutonium — is forever.
— You can now say, at least approximately, how many people were affected by this disaster?
— In the vicinity of nuclear power plant "Fukushima" population is ten times greater than around Chernobyl. According to calculations by Professor Chris Busby (Chris Busby, United Kingdom), from the already discarded radionuclides for 50 years for the eight million people living within a radius of 200 km from the "Fukushima", there may be 420,000 additional cases of cancer. Half of them — in the first ten years. "Fukushima" — it's scary.
— Will the accident at Japan's neighboring areas?
— A large number of radionuclides are already in the ocean. Now no one can say for sure how they are distributed over the ocean and what it portends. Already, fish with dangerous radionuclide content caught 60 km from the plant.
— Do calculations consume ocean radiation or not?
— The calculations are not, they do not so simple. Some believe that the additional radionuclides nothing bad will. But natural radionuclides (uranium, radium, thorium, potassium, tritium, etc.) are not alien to the nature. Radionuclides from the reactor — the alien. They affect shellfish, fish increased by hundreds of thousands of times the concentration after the inevitable bioaccumulation? Unknown. Authorities are concerned, of course — sea fishing is important for Japan, and even in different countries raises the issue that Japan violates international agreements, discharging radioactive water into the sea from the plant area. They were lowered into the sea bags of zeolite — for the accumulation of radionuclides. I do not think it will help. The other day there was a message about a new thousand-fold increase in the level of radioactivity in the sea — so there is some uncontrollable sources of contamination. Authorities said the leak into the ocean stopped. For how long? Pollution of the sea adds a new threat to the known radioactive contamination near and far around nuclear power plants (air, soil, water), iodine-131, cesium-134, cesium-137, plutonium … However, it's obviously incomplete. Japanese authorities do not speak the truth — do not want to panic.
What is the danger of "trouble free" NPP
— It is believed that the radiation suffers only one who is close to its source. Low doses of radiation affect health?
— In fact, any additional dose health effects. Once in 2005, it is officially recognized even the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, the scientific debate on this issue ceased. The question is not whether there is influence, and to what extent it is dangerous. Nuclear scientists believe that the effect of small doses is negligible and can be ignored. Coal-fired power plants, they say, is much more dangerous. As a result, emissions of coal-fired plants are killed every year 10 thousand people. It's true. But coal plants do not create new radionuclides. A nuclear power — create. NPP afraid that not only cause cancer and infant mortality, and genetic damage. Broken chromosomes, and the effects will be seen in many generations.
— You do not mean accidental nuclear power plants, and those that are working in normal mode? They cause genetic damage?
— Yes. Three years ago, Germany was officially confirmed that the working around NPP higher infant mortality, more cancer. A few years ago in the U.S. published a study of morbidity statistics around all 103 there the accident. Official statistics indicate that proximity to the nuclear power plant has no effect. But when you consider the wind rose and isolated from the surrounding areas leeward — found significant excess of breast cancer, infant mortality, low birth weight is not normal. The lack of data about the dangerous effect of plant does not mean a lack of influence. The other day caught my eye cancer statistics in the Voronezh region. Three groups of areas: 1) contaminated by the Chernobyl accident, and 2) in the vicinity of Novovoronezh 3) "clean" areas. Some cancers around nuclear power plants found much more than even in the Chernobyl area. What does this mean?
— The fact that we should go away from the plant.
— We should not go, and to fight against the construction of new nuclear power plants and for the closure of the old ones. In Nizhny Novgorod region plan to build nuclear power plants on the border area near by at the epic Murom, Vladimir region. And staffing, and emergency releases, of course, will cover Moore. But muromchan not even asked whether they would agree to such a neighborhood. Correctly, that the city seethe.
— It is necessary to hope that a small dose of radiation is still not as dangerous as big?
— It is not. Ultrasmall doses have disproportionately large effect — confirmed by thousands of jobs. The explanation is simple: a living organism to "not notice" and does not include protective mechanisms. With the growth of the body irradiation "second thoughts" and includes immune and other systems of protection. Then begins a linear correlation greater the dose — more effect.
Contract or agreement?
— Is there any statistics on the diseases of people who received low doses of Chernobyl? Is it possible, 25 years later to say that because of Chernobyl no one else gets sick?
— WHO and IAEA have predicted the "Chernobyl" generation of 4 to 9000 deaths from cancer. However, other calculations show that radiation from Chernobyl have died more than a million. Such a grand difference in the estimates due to the difference in methods of assessment. Officially recognized by the effect of radiation, if a correlation between the incidence and level of exposure. But the level of exposure is calculated — the average number of drunk average person on the average of contaminated milk and water, eaten contaminated food, the average volume of polluted air passing through the lungs, the average time spent in an area of high radiation. All of this — the average temperature in the hospital. And there are individual differences in radiosensitivity, age, sex, ethnic differences, there were huge differences in the action of various radionuclides. All this is averaged. Require the establishment of a rigid connection between the doses determined accurately and precisely defined disease and mortality — scientifically incorrect. When the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl was published referred to the IAEA and the WHO forecasts (up to 9 thousand additional deaths), many began to criticize them as dirty. "Given" this criticism, two months ago, the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said something like: "In view of uncertainties in the science refuses to discuss the issue of the number of victims of the Chernobyl disaster."
— Brad some. How the UN can step back from the discussion of the effect of radiation on human health?
— For good reason. In 1959, the IAEA has concluded an agreement with WHO. Under this treaty, the WHO will speak on radiation effects only after consultation with the IAEA! So I was standing in a picket near the building of the WHO in Geneva with a poster: "Remember the Hippocratic Oath! Tell the truth about Chernobyl. " This picket — 2-3 people — is the fourth year, every day from morning to evening. And we'll be there until the WHO does not change this shameful agreement.
— I say "we," who do you mean?
— We — this concerned citizens of the different countries of the Anti-nuclear organizations. This is 200,000, which, after "Fukushima" took to the streets of many German cities demanding the closure of German nuclear power plants. And "we" — is different experts who disagree with the nuclear scientists who formed the European Committee on Radiation Risk, it includes about a hundred people from different countries.
— From what you say that nuclear power is more dangerous than people think. Why hide it from people?
— Nuclear energy is closely related to nuclear weapons. This same research institutes, manufacturing production and enrichment of uranium. If the state relies on nuclear weapons, it must constantly nurture and develop the whole nuclear industry, especially energy. Nuclear energy — a "sacred cow" that can not be criticized.
Typhoons, hurricanes and krypton
— How does the death of the contaminated "Chernobyl" radiation areas of mortality in other regions?
— It is estimated that the mortality rate in highly contaminated areas of Chernobyl Russia for 15 years, up by 3.8% than in neighboring less contaminated areas. That's about 37 people per thousand inhabitants. Studies in the Ukraine and Belarus gave similar results. In addition to deaths caused by radiation, there is also a disease. The incidence of all organ systems — respiratory, digestive, nervous, circulatory, and others — exposed individuals is higher. Such research — thousands. Mainly in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. But not only — there are studies in Sweden, Germany, Norway and other countries. In early April, at a conference on the effects of Chernobyl in Berlin, Professor Sherba (Hagen Scherb) reported that, according to his calculations, in Europe, Chernobyl has caused about 800 thousand additional miscarriages and stillbirths. Another interesting fact is that throughout Europe after Chernobyl marked change in the sex ratio. From time immemorial, to 100 girls 106 boys born. After the 86th, this ratio changed: girls born on average at 3.5 per thousand less. Sweden — a country that has received a lot of Chernobyl radionuclides. Analysis of school grades for 20 years (they are stored) found that more contaminated areas school grades significantly lower. In these same areas significantly more cancer.
— Do we, in Russia, some studies comparing health to nuclear power plant construction and after?
— We — no. In the U.S. and Germany — were compared. After start-up is an increase in infant mortality, leukemia and other cancers. When some of the plant stopped working — there is change it back. In Switzerland, there is the artist Cornelia Hesse-Honegger (Hesse-Honegger). Her hobby — look around nuclear power plants the U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Ukraine, what's going on with the insects. It turned out all around the plant increased the number of mutant insects. Now her article about it published in international scientific journals.
— There is an opinion that the disadvantages of nuclear power plants outweigh their enormous advantage over coal — they do not cause global warming …
— The record of nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide. But for her to fuel — uranium. And in the process of uranium mining and the production of fuel ejected much carbon dioxide — 1 8 grams per kW / h So that nuclear power plants will not be saved from the greenhouse effect. In addition, the plant emit a huge amount of krypton-85. Krypton — an inert gas, it does not affect humans, but increases the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere. This increases the number of storms, storms, typhoons and cyclones. Now the number of krypton-85 in the atmosphere of a thousand more than it was before the beginning of the nuclear era. I do not exclude that the terrible storms in recent years (eg, "Katrina") associated with this.
— Experts often express opposing views on the same environmental problems. And all talk so convincingly that you do not know who to believe. How often do politicians and industrialists use ecologists to their advantage?
— From the people I know environmentalists in Russia (there are several thousands) Three consciously act in the interests of commercial companies getting money from them. When one of the "green" environmental interests betrayed for money or career, green community puts such people ostracized.
— Power can itself create environmental organizations — especially, that they defended the right of power positions. There are such cases?
— You bet. They are called "stuffed the public." Now the green movement is dangerous for the Kremlin policy as ideologically against making money at any cost, and above all — against the destruction of nature for profit. And the government always does something to drown out our voices and translate the growing environmental concern for the Kremlin benign course. Several years ago, the country with the support of the Kremlin began to emerge centers "environmental culture". Talk about the environmental culture — it does not threaten the power. This is not a protest against the Kremlin of the de-greening of the state, the destruction of environmental review, the import of foreign radioactive waste, nuclear power plants, deforestation, and pollution of rivers. And some of my friends went to environmentalists such centers, because there is money, and somehow have to live, and, in the end, ecological awareness should really be lifted in Russia. So deftly power weakened active green movement, someone tore up the fight to save the Khimki forest, against the extraction of sand for the Olympic construction on the beaches of Anapa, against the struggle to save Lake Baikal, Altai and Utrish, Kamchatka salmon and Volga sturgeon, against the oil and insane orgy construction of power plants in order to increase profits aluminum empire Deripaska.
— Many environmentalists believe that the construction of Olympic facilities destroys nature. Do you agree with this?
— Yes. I object to hold the Olympic Games at the cost of loss of the unique nature of the Western Caucasus, against violations of Russian environmental laws and the violation of Russia's international obligations to conserve biodiversity. C It was clear that the nature of the Western Caucasus and Russia's Black Sea coast will suffer, but I do not think that the scale of the destruction will be as significant. Damage to the environment outweigh the profits that someone will bring the Sochi Olympics.
As the human race will disappear
— What, in your opinion, is the purpose of humanity?
— Man — a product of the natural development of the biosphere. Biosphere four billion years has developed, increasing the "sum of life," as Darwin. One first too like walking this way — many cultures, many nationalities. As in nature blooming variety — as it blossoms in mankind. This flowering of ethno-cultural diversity to keep pace with the development of the biosphere, its enrichment. I think that the natural history of human destiny — continued enrichment of the biosphere. This is probably close to the thoughts of turning Vernadsky biosphere to noosphere — the sphere of reason.
— Do you think that humanity should now be its purpose?
— The political and social development of mankind is in conflict with the interests of the biosphere. The biosphere is not enriched and impoverished. In the 60 years of the last century, the biomass of humanity (we and our fields, our pets) was greater than the natural terrestrial biomass. The man became a dominant part of the biosphere, would continue to increase "the amount of life" in the biosphere. But it turns out the opposite: increasing the destruction of plants and animals (there is depletion of the biosphere) as a result of the barbaric destruction of tropical forests, the destruction of coastal mangroves and reef communities, littering, desertification, deforestation of the planet. Talk about "sustainable development" is similar to the communist mirage. To save the situation, we must pass on to crisis management of the biosphere. But this transition is not provided with sufficient knowledge and complicated it is very different levels of socio-economic development.
— How do you see the future of mankind?
— I like the concept of Gaia (formulated forty years ago, the Englishman James Lovelock). Earth — a huge organism that responds to stimuli, trying to get rid of them. According to this conception, humanity has become a stimulus of Gaia, and she would have to get rid of him.
— How's that?
— Way to much. Here, for example, so elegant. One hundred years ago, the average sperm concentration was 80-100 million per 1 cu. cm semen now — 40-60 million halved. If the process will continue at the same rate further, after 20-30 years, the concentration will be reduced to 15-20 million 20 million — a physiological limit for fertilization. Less than 20 million sperm per cubic centimeter can not fertilize the egg. So constructed.
— Why are fewer sperm?
— Due to the chemical and radioactive contamination of the biosphere and global pollutants eternal, alien living. Global — the ones that are found anywhere in the world (such as DDT). Eternal — are those who, having been made by man, remain for ever (eg, plutonium). In the 50 years of the twentieth century, demographic forecasts claimed that by 2000 the world will be 8.9 billion people. We found 6 billion forecast error? No! Demographers have not considered the fact that by 2000, humans have dirtied the earth and begin to poison themselves. 2.3 billion of unrealized — is the unborn are people who could not conceive or who died before birth. If the pollution of the planet will not stop, in 50 years we will be even less. Humanity does not increase, and the number has decreased. It will be reduced more and more, and the Earth in the end to get rid of us completely.
Moskovsky Komsomolets number 25629 on April 28, 2011
As if we do not take the written, facts are facts. Whatever information was not — in any case it should receive, and perception — a private matter. That's just for the correct information and should have a good web browser, which is enough to choose from. You can download from google chrome. The new browser is quite fast and easy. Just do not forget to include a firewall and remove the "automatic update" if you do not want that data from your hard disk was pumped to a server by Google. Carefully read the user agreement, which is written about it in detail.