Category: Science Policy

Japan: All Nuclear Disasters Are Not Created Equal

Science Policy

Sadly, the headlines are once again swamped with stories of the latest natural disaster to wreak havoc on the Pacific Rim. On March 11, 2011 an earthquake (8.9 on the richter scale) and subsequent tsunami (a wave created by the shifting bedrock in the ocean following an earthquake) shocked Japan leaving thousands dead, and many more missing.

Nuclear energy is a widely used source of power in Japan. As a result of the earthquake and tsunami, damage to the nuclear power plants has resulted in several explosions and the release of radioactive material. While the media is fixated on the threat posed by the imperiled nuclear power plants, there is a significant amount of misinformation, information without context, information in the wrong context, and complex information that is just not explained adequately in the media’s coverage.

The following list will hopefully clear up some of the confusing information I’ve seen in the popular coverage of Japan’s nuclear situation.
***

Diagram of the type of reactor at Fukushima
Source: Nuclear Energy Institute

1. The design of nuclear reactors vary: The nuclear reactors in trouble in Japan are the Mark 1 design by General Electric. This design has been controversial since the 1970’s when it was discovered that the cooling, ventilation, and containment systems (the areas causing trouble in the Japanese plants) could be problematic in the event of a meltdown, explosion, or other event. The New York Times’ article Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned states that the most common type of nuclear reactor is a pressurized water reactor where the system is encased in steel and cement and that, “the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant – and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants – is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.” The New York Times’ article goes on to explain that many American plants manufactured in General Electric’s Mark 1 design have been modified to fix the problems in the original plans. Americans should not be panicking that the nuclear reactors in the United States have the same problems as the ones in Japan. Each nuclear power plant needs to be evaluated in its own right for safety.

2. Comparisons to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are difficult to make: Chernobyl, located in the Ukraine, was a nuclear disaster that occurred on April 25, 1986 due to a flawed reactor design and human error. The Chernobyl reactor was of a soviet design, and according to the World Nuclear Association, “the design of the reactor is unique and the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside of the Eastern bloc.” Chernobyl was the only nuclear accident to cause human deaths due to direct exposure to radioactive material. Comparisons can be made to the situation in Japan about the extent of damage, but only once the situation is under control has been thoroughly assessed. Three Mile Island was an American accident in 1979 that occurred when a cooling malfunction caused part of the nuclear reactor’s core to melt. There were no adverse health effects associated with any radiation released from the plant after the accident. The build up of hydrogen gas following the meltdown was a factor in the Three Mile Island accident, and is causing problems in Japan but again differences in exact reactor design and protocol make it difficult to compare the situations.

3. The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale is not definite: Even though the INES scale is intended to help publicly convey the threat created by a nuclear event, designation of a certain level on the scale is not a reason to panic. The INES scale runs from 1 (very little danger to the general public) to 7 (widespread health and environmental impacts). Right now everyone is rushing to label the situation in Japan, but so far it is classified as somewhere between level 4 and level 6. The numbers (or levels) are not hard and fast, but it is a clear indication that this is a major event and should be treated with all necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the Japanese people.

4. Radiation is not distributed evenly: When a nuclear power plant experiences an explosion or a meltdown that causes the release of radioactive particles or debris into the environment it can be very complicated to track what areas are going to be effected by radiation. According to members of the Union of Concerned Scientists precipitation like wind or rain can cause the radioactive material to be distributed sporadically. The areas closest to the effected plant will be the first concern for scientists and policy makers assessing the radioactive fallout, but other areas (even far from the immediate vicinity of the plant) need to be assessed for radioactivity.

Map of Japanese Nuclear Sites
Source: International Nuclear Safety Center

5. Not all Japanese nuclear plants are in danger: There are 54 nuclear reactors in Japan located at 18 different sites throughout the country. The reactors in the north of the country experienced the most damage, particularly the Fukushima Daiichi plant which is located closest to the area hit by the earthquake. There are six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Reactors 5 and 6 have had water pumped into them and are currently at a low risk of an incident. Reactor 1 experienced an explosion on Saturday March 12th that damaged 70% of the fuel rods in the reactor, but so far it is reported that the containment vessels are intact. Reactor 2 experienced an explosion on Tuesday March 15th that damaged the suppression pool – a part of the cooling system leaving the fuel rods exposed. This reactor is leaking radiation. Reactor 4 experienced an explosion on Wednesday March 16th that caused a fire in a pool of spent fuel that is exposed to the air. The spent fuel contains more radiation than the fuel rods inside the reactor, so leaving them exposed (as they are now) means that radiation is leaking out into the environment. Reactor 3 is currently the center of an intense effort to cool the fuel rods by pumping in sea water. This reactor is the only one at the Fukushima Daiichi plant that uses plutonium, and thus contains the most radiation. The Kyodo News has a breakdown of the damage to the plant by reactor that contains more information.
***
Reuters has a great info graphic, that breaks down the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear disaster. The BBC also has an interesting article about the way that nuclear situation in Japan will impact further nuclear development around the world. As more information comes out I’ll try to update this post, but I hope that I’ve been able to provide some background on elements that I’ve seen in multiple articles about Japan’s nuclear situation.

Humans Contaminate DNA Databases

BioTechnology, Genetics, Government Regulations, New Research, Past Articles, Research Funding, Science Policy, Sequencing

Interesting research has been published in the online journal PLoS One, describing a problem with contamination in non-human DNA databases. DNA databases are libraries of genetic information about specific species. When a species has its genome sequenced, its genetic data goes into a database so that other research can be conducted based on that known genetic information.

When a DNA database becomes contaminated it means that there is other information that has corrupted the data stored in the database. In the new PLoS One paper the researchers (from the University of Connecticut) evaluated human contamination of databases that were supposed to contain other species – like the zebrafish. So contamination occurs when human DNA gets incorporated into the database for another species. When researchers go to work with the data about the zebrafish for example, they are actually working with human data without knowing it.

The University of Connecticut researchers looked for human contamination in NCBI genome databases, the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) databases, and the Joint Genome Institute databases. They found human DNA where it shouldn’t have been in a total of 492 of 2,749 evaluated databases.

This contamination issue is extremely problematic because research conducted based on contaminated information can not be trusted to be accurate. It can also be very difficult to track down which databases are contaminated unless the resources (time, money, etc) are spent to evaluate databases for clarity – as was done in this new research.

Database contamination is a relatively new issue brought to light be the massive influx of new genetic information made possible by improved genome sequencing technology. A similar issue that has existed for decades is cell line contamination which occurs when cells that are suspended in culture (alive outside of the body) are contaminated with cells that aren’t supposed to be there.

No regulatory body has stepped up and put a stop to cell line contamination in the last thirty years. I just hope that database contamination doesn’t follow suit.

To learn more, read the paper about Database contamination, or read an article I wrote for BioTechniques about cell line contamination. As taxpayers we spend a lot of money to fund scientific research, so it is important to know what problems (like contamination) exist in the research community.

From Novelist to Lepidopterist

New Research, Public Perceptions, Science History, Science Policy

My first encounter with Vladimir Nabokov was in my high school AP English class. My teacher Mr. Kaplow (author of Me and Orson Welles, which fun fact: is a movie starring High School Musical’s Zac Efron) kept a movie poster of Lolita (based on Nabokov’s most well known novel) hanging on the classroom wall.

I next encountered Nabokov while working through my undergraduate English major. Due to his Russian roots, Nabokov fit nicely into the course materials for my international literature class. I read his memoir Speak, Memory which talks a lot about Nabokov’s interest in lepidoptery, the study of butterflies.

Karner Blue Butterfly. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

I bring up Nabokov and his butterfly hobby because I just read an article on Nabokov’s scientific theories in the New York Times.  Nabokov’s theories were dismissed by lepidopterists during his lifetime,  but genetic analysis has shown that he was exactly right about the origin of a group of butterflies known as the Polyommatus blues. Nabokov theorized that the butterflies had originated in Asia and come to the United States in waves, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s no one took him seriously.

Researchers at Harvard University (where Nabokov was curator of lepidoptera at the Museum of Comparative Zoology) decided to do a genetic analysis on the butterflies to test Nabokov’s 30-year-old theory. The results showed that Nabokov was right all along, Polyommatus blues are genetically linked to butterflies in Asia. Genetic analysis has also been used to validate Nabokov’s hypothesis that Karner Blue Butterflies are a distinct species.

By this point you might be wondering why it matters that this long dead Russian novelist has been vindicated as a legitimate scientist by new technological advances, so I’ll get to my point. Nabokov is an example of how members of the scientific community can be quick to dismiss the work of anyone who isn’t an expert.

If we hold anyone who does scientific research to the same standard of peer review (analysis by other scientists, and the ability to replicate a study or experiment and get the same results as the original researcher) then even people who don’t have their doctorate in a specific science can still contribute new knowledge.

Please note that I’m not advocating that any quack with a theory should be taken seriously by the scientific community. But if promising research or theories are developed by people who might not call science their profession, their value should still be evaluated.

Snake Banishment Bias

Government Regulations, Science Policy

The New York Times article, Snake Owners See Furry Bias in Invasive Species Proposal caught my eye today because I love snakes. I know that it is a little unusual for a girl to love snakes, typically snakes induce a lot of frightened yelping. But, I have always found them awkwardly beautiful.

Normal and Albino Snake. Source: Wikimedia Commons

According to the article the US Fish and Wildlife Service is cracking down on snake ownership due to the increased prevalence of invasive snakes in various ecosystems. Boas, Anacondas, and Pythons are among the types of snakes included in the crack down, but they are popular as pets. Pet snakes become problematic when they escape or get released into the wild and prey on local species.

Opponents to legislation to restrict the sale of snakes say that there should be a distinction between snakes that can’t thrive in the wild (suffering from albinism, or in unsuitable climates) versus snakes that are likely to become invasive.

Snake enthusiasts are opposed to legislation that would restrict the sale of snakes on the grounds that there could be a significant loss of revenue for breeders. Because the animals are pets, restrictions would also bring up the issue of whether the government should be able to dictate what type of pets people keep.

USGS says the nose knows prominent lake toxins

Environment, Grad School, Science Policy

I wrote this article for my J800 class last semester at the beginning of October. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to get it published in any of the local papers when it was still timely. But, the nice thing about having a blog is that I can use it to publish pieces that don’t get picked up elsewhere, so here you go…

A U.S. Geological Survey study has found that cyanotoxins in Midwest lakes emit odors, adding smell to the public’s arsenal against exposure to hazardous aquatic toxins.

Before you enter your local lake, stop and smell the water. A new study shows that lakes in the throes of a toxic algae bloom give off a characteristic scent that can warn people to stay away. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) the findings should help the public identify hazardous lakes based on their smell, reducing the instance of cyanotoxin-related illness.
“Cyanotoxins pose the largest hazard to human health during recreational activities, so public health is one of the motivations behind studies of these toxins,” said Jennifer Graham a researcher at the USGS’ Kansas Water Science Center, and lead researcher on the study.
Simply avoiding lakes with algae isn’t a realistic way for residents to stay safe because algae occurs naturally and is not usually harmful. According to Graham, residents need new ways to tell whether specific algae blooms contain toxic compounds. The researchers tested for chemical signatures that indicate the presence of odor, and found that cyanobacteria blooms give the water what Graham describes as a musty smell.
The study showed the odor consistently occurs when toxins are present, but toxins can occur without the odor. According to Graham this makes smell a useful indication that toxins are present, but not something the public can rely on with absolute certainty.
“Smell is something that anybody should be able to use, the human nose is very sensitive to the compounds produced by the cyanobacteria. It is musty and might smell like dirt and so that could be used to evaluate a situation,” said Graham. “From a recreational perspective it is useful because odor gives a cue that there might be something of concern going on in an area.”
Would your nose know?

While Graham maintains that the odors given off by toxic algae blooms are distinctive enough to identify a toxic bloom, some Madison residents have doubts.
University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) sophomore Martin Feehan doesn’t think smell is a reliable way to identify cyanotoxin episodes in Wisconsin’s lakes. Feehan is president of Hoofer Scuba, a recreational group at UW that uses the lakes surrounding campus regularly.
“I think smell could be a good way, but it could also be misleading because the different smells in the lake could come from several sources,” said Feehan. According to Feehan, the decomposition of plant material or fish could easily cause earthy, musty smells at the lakes that could be confused with the toxin scent.
Feehan says participating in Hoofer Scuba has made him aware of cyanotoxins, but the group does not actively look for toxic blooms. Instead, they rely on notices from the Madison Department of Public Health. “We have warnings that go up at the boathouse if there are blooms,” said Feehan.
Todd Miller, a postdoctoral researcher at UW-Madison is wary of encouraging the public to sniff out cyanotoxins.  Miller, who holds a doctorate in marine estuarine environmental sciences from the University of Maryland, College Park, has worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Trina McMahon since 2007.
“The study is intriguing and I think opens the door to potential new methods for early toxic bloom detection,” said Miller, in an email message. “But there are many sources of the odor compounds the researchers measured, and as the study shows toxins can be present in the water at dangerous levels even when the odor compounds are not present.”
According to Miller, smelling the lakes to identify the presence of toxins is unreliable. “It is probably not reasonable to expect the public to identify toxic or non-toxic waters based on smell,” said Miller. “I tell people to enjoy the lakes, but don’t swallow the water, pay attention to public warning signs by the health department and don’t enter the water if the lakes are closed to recreation.”
Graham says smell is not the only one way that the public should identify potentially toxic blooms, and advocates using multiple means to avoid exposure to cyanotoxins including visual cues (green or red tint to the water or scum floating on the water’s surface) and checking for warning notices before entering a lake.
A persistent problem

Cyanobacteria and the toxins they produce are a problem that has affected Midwest lakes for several years. According to the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network and the UW-Center for Limnology nine beaches in Madison were closed due to cyanotoxins in July 2009, the largest cyanotoxin episode in Wisconsin that year.
According to Graham, cyanobacteria are microorganisms that occur naturally in aquatic ecosystems as part of algae blooms. Some of these blooms contain cyanobacteria, which can create toxic chemical compounds that can be dangerous.
The three main types of toxins are dermatoxins, which cause skin or respiratory reactions after direct contact; hepatotoxins, which are absorbed by the liver and cause gastroenteritis; and neurotoxins, which are absorbed by the central nervous system.
Though cyanobacteria exist naturally in lakes, according to Graham, the toxins they produce become problematic when they occur in increasingly large concentrations. This happens when algae the bacteria thrive on grow rapidly.
“Cyanobacteria blooms are a natural phenomenon, but they can be aggravated by human activities,” said Graham. These activities include land development that causes soil to erode and runoff from farms or landscaping that washes fertilizer and soil into lakes.
According to Graham in addition to testing for odors, this study was the first to quantify the presence of multiple toxins in a single algae bloom. The study evaluated lakes in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota, chosen because they have long-standing cyanobacteria problems.
Until Next Year

With the outdoor recreational season ending and Midwest residents heading back to land, Graham, Miller and Feehan agree that cyanotoxins remain a pressing issue.
Cyanotoxins are continuously researched. Miller is studying how environmental factors like temperature and pH influence the production of toxins in freshwater lakes, and Graham is working to identify what organisms produce cyanotoxins and why.
“Cyanobacterial blooms are an issue that has been exacerbated by human activities, so it won’t be an easy issue to solve because it is something that has evolved over time,” says Graham. “But, with public education and increased information about what hazards are in natural water bodies the incidents of human illness and animal illness from recreational exposure can really be reduced.”
For water enthusiasts like Hoofer Scuba’s Feehan, research like Miller and Graham’s is a step in the right direction because staying out of the water every time there is a toxic bloom isn’t sustainable. “I understand that the algae is toxic and can cause health problems,” said Feehan. “But it makes people lose out on fishing and other water activities so I think something definitely needs to be done to fix the situation.”
The research paper, “Cyanotoxin mixtures and taste-and-odor compounds in cyanobacterial blooms from the Midwestern United States” was published in the September 2010 issue of Environmental Science and Technology.