The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Current Commentary.

This has been published in the journal, Science Progress (of which I am an editor), and can be downloaded for free via this link:

http://www.sciencereviews2000.co.uk/blog_v2/view/the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident-free-commentary/758#.U5BB_Sgylco


Introduction.

I remember vividly the event in 1986 when the Unit 4 reactor at Chernobyl¹ exploded, since I was working in Russia during the weeks following it. Largely, this was a preventable occurrence, and was caused by a combination of circumstances, but principally through an unscheduled and ill-conceived “experiment” involving the full withdrawal of the majority of the control rods from the reactor, actually in defiance of standing rules and after deliberately disabling safety systems. In part, the reason for the withdrawal of so many of the control rods was an attempt to compensate for the loss of power caused by a build up of xenon, which acts as a neutron absorber. Various factors contributed to a loss of cooling water which heightened the already unstable condition of the reactor, due to an increase in the production of steam in the cooling channels (positive void coefficient). By this stage, there was nothing that could be done to avert a calamity, since inherent positive feedback effects rendered the initial rise in power unstoppable, leading to an overwhelming power surge, estimated to be 100 times the nominal power output of the reactor.

There is much speculation as to how many deaths Chernobyl might eventually cause, but the initial recorded number was 56² (including 47 “liquidators” and 9 children who died of thyroid cancer). Estimates of the ultimate number range from 4,000² up to nearly one million³ fatalities from radiation-induced cancers. Chernobyl is the third really serious nuclear accident to occur in the civilian nuclear industry. At the time, there was very little information made available within the U.S.S.R., and my Russian colleagues learned most about what had happened from their counterparts in the West. I have mentioned "Chernobyl" to various of my friends and acquaintances recently, and from this small survey it seems that no-one under the age of about fifty is aware of even the name of the place, let alone what happened there. Apparently, a worker at a Swedish nuclear power plant (NPP) set the alarms off when he went into work on a Monday morning, having been hiking in the hills, over the weekend. Naturally, this was a surprise since someone working at an NPP might be expected to be contaminated by exposure inside the installation, but in this case, the radioactive plume had contaminated Sweden (and the NPP worker) along with much of Western Europe, which alerted that the event had taken place. Along with Chernobyl, there have been major accidents at Three Mile Island and Windscale (subsequently renamed Sellafield). That said, the nuclear industry has a fairly impeccable safety record, albeit that the long-term storage of its waste remains an unresolved dilemma.

To the above list of three, which occurred some decades ago, can now be appended the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident⁴. In the latter instance, the tsunami following the Tōhoku earthquake on March 11^th, 2011 resulted in failures of equipment and a loss-of-coolant event, with nuclear meltdowns (overheating and damage to the reactor core, with melting of fuel rod components and the potential for escape of radionuclides), and the egress of radioactive isotopes, commencing on March12^th, 2011. Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only NPP accidents to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale⁵ (described below), and it is estimated that the Fukushima accident has released⁶ 10─30% of the amount of radiation resulting from that at Chernobyl, although the emissions continue, and it is not clear how and when they may be stemmed entirely. The Fukushima NPP⁷ had six separate boiling water reactors which were made by General Electric (GE) and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Reactor 4 had been de-fueled when the incident took place, and reactors 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown in the intention of a planned maintenance effort. When the earthquake hit, reactors 1–3 were automatically shut down by the insertion of control rods, i.e. a SCRAM event. Emergency generators then came into play to provide power for the electronics and coolant devices, which operated until the tsunami struck, 50 minutes after the quake itself. In consequence of its coastal location, the NPP had a 10 metre high seawall, but this was overwhelmed by the height of the tsunami at 13 metres, so that water quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed. Consequently, the diesel generators failed, as accordingly did the pumps that had circulated cooling water through a Generation II reactor, as is necessary to prevent the fuel rods from melting down following the SCRAM event. It is believed that, inside reactor 1 within about three hours the water level fell to the top of the fuel (6.00 pm) and to the bottom of it about 1.5 hours later (7.30 pm). As a consequence, severe heating of the exposed fuel occurred (to perhaps 2,800°C) so that the central portion began to melt, and by 16 hours (7.00 am the following day) most of it had dropped into the water at the bottom of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)⁸. RPV temperatures have fallen steadily thereafter. Full meltdowns occurred in reactors 1─3.

There have been several hydrogen explosions⁹ reported, beginning on March 12^th, in Unit 1; and finally on March 15^th, in Unit 4. It is reckoned that the reaction between water and the heated zirconium-clad fuel in reactors 1─3 produced of the order of one tonne of H₂ gas in each case, which on release and admixture with air achieved an explosive concentration in units 1 and 3. Unit 4 also filled with hydrogen, resulting in explosions at the top of each unit, i.e. in their upper secondary containment building⁸. So far, no one has died as a result of radiation exposure from Fukushima, while some 18,500 fatalities have occurred from the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami per se. There is speculation (as over Chernobyl) as to how many cancer related deaths there will be in consequence of accumulated radiation exposures in the years to come, and one estimate¹⁰ is that there will be 130 fatalities and 180 additional cancer cases, mostly in the most heavily contaminated areas of Fukushima. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded that the according health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels¹¹. In 2013, the WHO produced a report suggesting that girls exposed as infants to radiation (presumably from radioactive iodine) have a 70% increase in their risk of developing thyroid cancer¹². I recall that after Chernobyl, ¹³¹I could be detected using a radiation detector placed against the neck, and close to the thyroid gland of individuals in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, which permitted estimates of the degree of radiation exposure to be made. In the Fukushima Prefecture region, abnormal thyroid glands were identified in around one third of children⁴, which does seem a rather high proportion. While 44 children in the region have been diagnosed¹³ with cancers of the thyroid, it is not clear if this is caused by exposure to radioactive materials from the Fukushima NPP. The Chernobyl incident appeared to ring-in the death knell for the nuclear industry, and yet a more positive view of it has been taken in recent years, in part as a strategy to avoid carbon-emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. Fukushima has, to some degree, revoked this renewed support, and as the radioactive emanations continue from the NPP, the voice of dissent is likely to become familiarly strident.

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Itself.

With a total output of 4.7 GW, the Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant⁷ was on the list of the world’s 15 largest NPPs, consisting of six light water, boiling water reactors (BWR). Unit 1 is a 439 MWe type (BWR-3) reactor. It was constructed in July 1967 and began its commercial life on March 26^th,1971, and could cope with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s²) and a response spectrum which was factored upon the 1952 Kern County earthquake. Both the 2 and 3 Units are of 784 MWe type BWR-4, which began producing electricity respectively in 1974 and 1976. The earthquake design of the reactors was in the range 0.42 g (4.12 m/s²) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s²): in the aftermath of the 1978 Miyagi earthquake [ground acceleration 0.125 g (1.22 m/s²) for 30 seconds)], the critical parts of the reactor were found to have suffered no damage. Unit 3 ran using a mixed-oxide fuel as from September 2010. Nuclear reactors produce thermal energy (heat), which is normally used to turn liquid water into steam and drive a turbine for generating electricity, typically through the fission of ²³⁵U, although one third approximately of the power output of an NPP arises from the fission of ²³⁹Pu: the latter being produced in situ by neutron absorption into ²³⁸U. Even once the nuclear chain reaction has been switched off, the reactor emits heat from the decay of unstable fission products; hence, in the period immediately following shutdown, 6% of the heat is still produced as when the reactor was fully running¹⁴. Over several days, this falls to cold shutdown levels. The fuel rods themselves typically require another several years of cooling in water before they can be put safely into dry cask storage containers¹⁵. To achieve this cooling, water must be circulated over the fuel rods in the reactor core and in the spent fuel pond. High pressure pumps are used to move water through the reactor pressure vessel and into heat exchangers – the latter transfer heat to a secondary heat exchanger via the essential service water system, and finally the hot water is moved to cooling towers on-site or pumped out to the sea. To add context to the need for cooling water, we may note that if the water in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool had been at its boiling point, the residual heat was sufficient to evaporate some 70 tonnes of it per day¹⁵. Zirconium alloys are solid solutions of zirconium or other metals, and are commonly known by their trademark Zircaloy. These have particular advantages¹⁶ in the fabrication of the internal components of nuclear reactors: i.e. a very low absorption cross-section of thermal neutrons, along with a high degree of hardness, ductility and corrosion resistance. Zirconium alloys are employed as cladding for fuel rods, especially in water reactors. Nuclear-grade zirconium alloys consist of > 95 wt. % of zirconium with < 2% of tin, niobium, iron, chromium, nickel and other metals, the presence of which enhances mechanical properties and resistance to corrosion. At temperatures of the order of 300 ^oC, typical for reactor operation, zircaloy is practically inert; however, at temperatures > 500 ^oC, zircaloy reacts exothermically with steam to produce free H₂ gas, and this is thought to be the origin of the hydrogen explosions that occurred at Fukushima.

International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES).

The INES⁵ is approximately logarithmic, similarly to the Beaufort scale used to describe relative wind force, and the moment magnitude scale for the comparative power of earthquakes. Hence, each successive level indicates a tenfold severity over the previous one. Since the INES level can only be ascribed after the event has occurred (and this requires some degree of interpretation), rather than during it, it has only limited use to guide disaster-aid deployment, which is one of its criticisms. A description of the different levels follows, along with selected examples of incidents to which each category has been assigned. The INES extends from Level 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, and ends at Level 7, which refers to an accident/incident from which there is widespread contamination, and accordingly serious health and environmental outcomes.


Level 7: Major accident.

Impact on people and environment:

Major release of radio­active ­material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures.

There have been two such events to date:

Chernobyl disaster (Soviet Union), on April 26^th, 1986 A power surge during a test procedure resulted in a criticality accident, leading to a powerful steam explosion and fire that released a significant fraction of core material into the environment, resulting in a death toll of 56, in addition to 4,000 additional cancer fatalities (official WHO estimate) resulting from radiation exposure.

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Japan), a series of events beginning on March 11^th, 2011.


Level 6: Serious accident.

Impact on people and environment:

Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

There has been just one such event to date:

Kyshtym disaster at Mayak Chemical Combine (M.C.C.) (Soviet Union), on September 29^th, 1957. A failed cooling system at a military nuclear waste reprocessing facility caused a steam explosion with a force equivalent to 70─100 tonnes of TNT. About 70─80 tonnes of highly radioactive material was released into the region. It is thought that at least 22 villages were affected, although there is no population data.


Level 5: Accident with wider consequences.

Impact on people and environment:

Limited release of radioactive ­material likely to require i­mplementation of some planned­ countermeasures.

Several deaths from ­radiation.

Impact on radiological barriers and control:

Severe damage to reactor core.

Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality accident or fire.

Examples:

Windscale (United Kingdom), October 10^th, 1957. Annealing of graphite moderator at a military air-cooled reactor caused the graphite and the metallic uranium fuel to catch fire, releasing radioactive pile material as dust into the environment.

Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (United States), March 28^th, 1979. A gradual loss of coolant occurred, with a partial meltdown. Although radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere, this incident has not been attributed to casualties.

Goiânia accident (Brazil), September 13^th, 1987. An unsecured radioactive source containing caesium chloride was stolen from an abandoned hospital by thieves who were unaware of its nature and sold to a scrap dealer. As a result, 249 people became contaminated, of whom 4 died.


Level 4: Accident with local consequences.

Impact on people and environment:

Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.

At least one death from radiation.

Impact on radiological barriers and control:

Fuel melt or damage to fuel ­resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.

Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high ­probability of significant public exposure.

Examples:

Sellafield (United Kingdom): five incidents occurred during the period 1955─1979.

SL-1 Experimental Power Station (United States): 1961, reactor reached prompt criticality, killing three operators.

Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant (France), 1969: partial core meltdown; 1980, graphite overheating.

Buenos Aires (Argentina): 1983, a criticality accident occurred during fuel rod replacement which killed one operator and injured 2 others.

Jaslovské Bohunice (Czechoslovakia): 1977, contamination of a reactor building occurred.

Tokaimura nuclear accident (Japan): 1999, three inexperienced operators at a reprocessing facility caused a criticality accident, two of whom died.


Level 3: Serious incident.

Impact on people and environment:

Exposure in excess of 10x the statutory annual limit for workers.

Non-lethal deterministic health effect (e.g., burns) from radiation.

Impact on radiological barriers and control:

Exposure rates of more than 1 Sv/h in an operating area.

Severe contamination in an area not expected by design, with a low probability of ­significant public exposure.

Impact on defence-in-depth (the practice of having multiple, redundant, and independent layers of safety systems for the single, critical point of failure: the reactor core):

Near accident at a nuclear power plant with no safety provisions remaining.

Lost or stolen highly radioactive sealed source.

Misdelivered highly radioactive sealed source without adequate procedures in place to handle it.

Examples:

THORP plant Sellafield (United Kingdom), 2005.

Paks Nuclear Power Plant (Hungary), 2003. Fuel rod damage in cleaning tank.

Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant (Spain), 1989; fire destroyed many control systems; the reactor was shut down.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Japan), 2013. In a further incident of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, 300 tonnes of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank.


Level 2: Incident.

Impact on people and environment:

Exposure of a member of the public in excess of 10 mSv.

Exposure of a worker in excess of the statutory annual limits.

Impact on radiological barriers and control:

Radiation levels in an operating area of more than 50 mSv/h.

Significant contamination within the facility into an area not expected by design.

Impact on defence-in-depth:

Significant failures in safety ­provisions but with no actual ­consequences.

Found highly radioactive sealed orphan source, device or transport package with safety provisions intact.

Inadequate packaging of a highly radioactive sealed source.

Examples:

Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood (France), December 1999.

Ascó Nuclear Power Plant (Spain) April 2008. Radioactive contamination.

Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (Sweden) July 2006; backup generator failure; two were online but fault could have caused all four to fail.

Gundremmingen Nuclear Power Plant (Germany) 1977. Weather caused short-circuit of high-tension power lines and rapid shutdown of reactor

Shika Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) 1999. Criticality incident caused by dropped control rods, covered up until 2007.


Level 1: Anomaly.

Impact on defence-in-depth:

Overexposure of a member of the public in excess of statutory ­annual limits.

Minor problems with safety components with significant defence-in-depth remaining.

Low activity lost or stolen radioactive source, device or transport package.

(Arrangements for reporting minor events to the public differ from country to country. It is difficult to ensure precise consistency in rating events between INES Level 1 and Below scale/Level 0)

Examples:

Penly (Seine-Maritime, France) April 5^th, 2012. An abnormal leak on the primary circuit of the reactor No. 2 was found in the evening of April 5^th, 2012 after a fire in reactor No. 2 around noon was extinguished.

Gravelines (Nord, France), August 8^th, 2009; during the annual fuel bundle exchange in reactor 1, a fuel bundle snagged. Operations were stopped, the reactor building was evacuated and isolated in accordance with operating procedures.

TNPC (Drôme, France), July 2008; leak of 18,000 litres (4,000 imp gal; 4,800 US gal) of water containing 75 kilograms (165 lb) of unenriched uranium into the environment.


Level 0: Deviation.

No safety significance.

Examples:

June 4^th, 2008: Krško, Slovenia: Leakage from the primary cooling circuit.

December 17^th, 2006, Atucha, Argentina: Reactor shutdown due to tritium increase in reactor compartment.

13^th February 2006: Fire in Nuclear Waste Volume Reduction Facilities of the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in Tokaimura.


Estimated severity of the Fukushima NPP incident.

In the case of the Fukushima nuclear accident, a provisional INES rating of 7 has been given (Chernobyl also scored 7, and Three Mile Island, 5). Estimates of the total amount of intermediate and long lived radionuclides that egressed from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP are of the order of 10─30% of the release from Chernobyl. It is thought that Fukushima has so far released ca 15 PBq^8,17 of ¹³⁷Cs, which is the activity of 4.6 kilograms of the radionuclide. In comparison, Chernobyl released 85 PBq of ¹³⁷Cs¹⁸, or 26 kg worth. The radionuclide release, including ¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁰Sr, ²⁴¹Am and various Pu isotopes, which emanated from the Fukushima NPP were strongly mitigated by the reactors being housed in concrete containment vessels, unlike at Chernobyl, where the fated Unit 4 reactor had no containment. While it is the most biologically hazardous isotope, the half-life of ¹³¹I is only about 8 days, meaning that after 10 half-lives (80 days) practically all of it has decayed to the stable isotope ¹³¹Xe, which is harmless; hence the time during which human exposure can occur is relatively short. 500 PBq¹⁷ of ¹³¹I were released from the Fukushima NPP, but 1,760 PBq¹⁸ of ¹³¹I from Chernobyl.

Concerns that a large scale release of radioactivity from the Fukushima NPP might occur, led to a 20 km exclusion zone being set up around the power plant¹⁹, and those living within the 20–30 km zone were advised to remain indoors. As the reaction to fears over the spread of radioactive contamination escalated, some countries, including the U.K. and France, advised their own nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, some 225 km away. The evacuation of Tokyo itself was considered, which would have jeopardized the future of the Japanese state. On March 12th, radioactive materials were first detected by a CTBTO (Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization) monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, some 200 km distant from the NPP. The path of the radioactive isotopes (¹³¹I, ¹³⁴Cs, ¹³⁷Cs) could be tracked²⁰ to eastern Russia on March 14^th and by March 16^th to the west coast of the United States. Within one month, radioactive materials were recorded by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere, e.g. those in Australia, Fiji, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. As already noted, it has been reckoned that the total amount of radioactive materials released from the Fukushima NPP is about 10-30% that released from the Chernobyl NPP accident, and the area of contamination is about one-tenth that of Chernobyl. The French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety reported²¹ that, between March 21^st and mid-July, around 27 PBq of ¹³⁷Cs entered the ocean, about 82% having flowed into the sea before April 8^th. The Kuroshio Current on the Fukushima coast is one of the world's strongest, and has transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, causing the radioactive materials to become highly diluted. It is thought that the consequences for marine life from radioactivity will be fairly minor. The human health impacts are discussed in more detail later, but are also expected to be minor.


Groundwater contamination

On July 8^th, 2013, TEPCO found 9,000 Bq/L of ¹³⁴Cs per litre and 18,000 Bq/L of ¹³⁷Cs in a sample taken from a well near to the coast, some 85 times greater than in a sample taken three days previously²². TEPCO assumed that the radioactive leak stemmed from the incident itself in 2011, but experts from the NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan) considered that other sources could not be ruled-out. Due to the complexity of the array of pipes used to cool the reactors and decontaminate the water used, leaks might occur anywhere. The groundwater flows could easily be shifted which could make the contamination even more widespread, and there were also plans to pump groundwater. Since the reactor 2 and 3 turbine-buildings contained 5,000 and 6,000 m³ of highly radioactive water, and there were wells in direct contact with the turbine-buildings, there was a distinct possibility that radioactive material could be transferred into the ground/groundwater. The NRA had issued a nuclear disaster rating earlier, in consequence of leaks that were detected in the surface water and top-soil near the leaking tanks, with β-radiation levels as high as 2,200 mSv/h. On September 9^th, 2013 a high level of β-radiation (3,200 Bq/L) was found in a groundwater testing well²³ (not near a storage tank), indicating that the groundwater upstream of the reactors had become contaminated. An adjacent well was also found to be contaminated, though to lower levels, implying that the contaminated water is not “contained” in any way, but can move through the ground.

Radioactive contamination of the Ocean

On July 22^nd, 2013 TEPCO admitted there had been a leak of radioactive water into the ocean, and on July 27^th, the company announced that, in a pit containing about 5000 m³ of water adjacent to the reactor 2 building, there were massive levels²⁴ of tritium (8.7 million Bq/L) and particularly caesium, at 2.35 billion Bq/L. [Tritium is produced in an NPP by the absorption of neutrons by boron, which is employed either as an intrinsic component of the control rods, or is added to the coolant water to assist control of the nuclear chain reaction, since it is a highly efficient neutron absorbing agent. Minor quantities of tritium may arise when ²³⁵U fissions in the reactor core, or from neutron absorption by lithium or deuterium oxide (“heavy water") in the coolant water. Caesium, along with strontium, is a major fission product of ²³⁵U]. Since there was still water flowing from the reactor into the turbine building and into the pit, the NRA feared that there might be a further and more serious such radiation leak. In August, 2013 TEPCO admitted that up to 400 tonnes of contaminated water flows into the Pacific Ocean every day²⁵ and that probably 20─40 terabecquerels of tritium had entered the ocean since May 2011⁸. Alarming though this statistic sounds, it should be compared with the 22 terabecquerels per year, that TEPCO was allowed to put into the sea according to its regulations, but when exactly the tritium had begun to escape was not clear.⁸ Liquid glass was injected into the soil to form a wall, rendering the soil impermeable to water, a task that was completed on 9^th August. The following day, TEPCO speculated that radioactive water might be flowing over the top of the underground wall, which was some 1.8 metres below the surface of the ground, according both to sea and groundwater measurements; the leakage was not stemmed by groundwater pumping²⁶. Around 1,000 tonnes per day of groundwater flow was reckoned, of which ca 400 tonnes was flowing into the reactor buildings. Thus, a clear potential mechanism existed for water to enter the ground via the complex maze of pipes and tunnels²⁷.

Leakage from storage tanks.

Around 1,000 storage tanks have been set up within the 860-acre compound of the Fukushima NPP, to hold 350,000 tonnes of radioactive water, of which 350 are of the flange type²⁸. Wooded areas are being cleared to make room for more tanks. On August 19^th, 2013, two “hotspots” of water were found near a 1000 tonne cylindrical, steel, flange type storage tank, which were emitting 80 million Bq/L, which it was later shown had leaked 300 tonnes of water. The radiation level at the surface of one of the puddles was measured at100 mSv/h, which is sufficient to give a year’s annual dose to a German radiation worker in just 12 minutes. The incident was provisionally rated by the NRA as a Level 1 “anomaly” on the seven-level INES scale, but this was revised up to Level 3 on August 28^th, and reported to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). On September 2nd, it was reported that radiation near another tank was measured at1,800 mSv/h, which was18 times higher²⁹ than the initially reported 100 mSv/h, but this discrepancy arose because that latter was the maximum reading possible on the equipment initially employed. A more sophisticated radiation-meter was necessary, that could record much higher levels, to determine the correct dose rate. TEPCO started cleaning the draining ditch at the north side of the leaking tank on September 9^th. By September 12^th, it became clear that levels of tritium were increasing in a test well some 20 meters north from the leaking storage tank³⁰: September 8^th: 4,200 Bq/L; September 9^th: 29,000 Bq/L; September 10^th: 64,000 Bq/L; September 11^th: 97,000 Bq/L. On September 12^th, a β-radiation level of 220 Bq/L was measured in a drainage ditch, some 150 metres from the coast, leading directly into the ocean, an increase by a factor of twelve in the previous two days. Given that this contamination from the leaking tank was located some130 meters west from the planned frozen wall, there is some question as to how effective this strategy will be in diverting contaminated water to the sea³¹.

Reactor stabilization and cleanup operations

The reactor units involved in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are located in close proximity to one another: it is this that contributed to chain-reaction events, causing hydrogen explosions of sufficient force to blast the roofs of the buildings in which the reactors were housed and water draining from the spent-fuel pools. Thus it was necessary to try and deal with core meltdowns at three reactors and exposed fuel pools at three units, all at the same time³². A “roadmap” has been released by the Japanese government which indicates that for the complete clean-up and decommissioning of the NPP, and its environs will take up to 40 years³³. Toshiba are more optimistic, and think they can do the job in just 10 years³⁴, and for comparison it took some 14 years to clean up Three Mile Island. This was a different kind of event, however. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) began using unmanned heavy machinery on April 10^th, 2011 to remove debris from around the reactors 1─4, and on April 17^th, 2011 the company put forward the broad basis of a plan which included reaching "cold shutdown in about six to nine months, and indeed shutdown was achieved on December 11^th, 2011. Although cooling was no longer required, it was still necessary to control large water leaks. On May 5^th, 2011, workers were able to enter the reactor buildings and began to install filtration systems to remove radioactive materials from the air, so that other workers could install water cooling systems; on August 16^th, the company said it had installed desalination equipment in the spent fuel pools³⁵. The latter were cooled using seawater for some while, but TEPCO warned of the risk that this might corrode the walls of the pools and pipes made of stainless steel. The Prime Minister of Japan, Yoshihiko Noda is quoted as saying that his government might have to spend 1 trillion yen ($13 billion)³⁶ to clean up those vast areas that are radioactively contaminated from the Fukushima accident. It was believed that 29 million cubic meters of soil might need to be disposed of and removed from a large area in Fukushima, and four nearby prefectures, for which hydrothermal blasting is one of several techniques that was considered. However, the contamination proved to be only superficial³⁷, and while the crops grown in 2011, the year that the accident had occurred in, were contaminated, those now grown in the area are considered safe to be consumed by humans. The majority of caesium was detected in the vegetation and litter layer of the forest, and accordingly the preferred method of disposal is incineration. Overall, this might be thought of as a kind of phytoremediation³⁸ strategy since it can reduce contamination levels by a factor of 10 and is a very low-tech method. However, there is a risk form the resulting ash which is accordingly contaminated with caesium ending up in the atmosphere, with potential health risks. Burning in situ is probably not an option, but removing the plant material to be burned in a special incinerator fitted with suitable fine-ash filters might prove feasible.

Roadmap for scrapping the nuclear reactors

At a session of the Fukushima Prefectural Assembly, which was investigating the accident at the Fukushima NPP, on September 7th, 2011 the TEPCO president, Toshio Nishizawa announced that the 4 damaged reactors would be scrapped. On November 9th, a schedule was drawn up for scrapping the damaged reactors, by an expert panel from the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission. The approach chosen was partly based on prior experience in dealing with the Three Mile Island accident, in 1979, although at Fukushima there had been three meltdowns on the one site, and so a considerably greater problem prevailed. The following main points were identified:

The overall process will take around 40 years³³.

First the containment vessels must be repaired and filled with water to absorb the radiation.

The reactors should be in a state of stable cold shutdown.

Three years later, the transfer of all spent fuel from the 4 damaged reactors to a pool inside the compound could be started.

After 10 years, work could begin to remove the melted fuel inside the reactors.

Decontamination of regions neighbouring Fukushima.

On October 10^th, 2011 the Japanese government produced a revised decontamination plan, which involves removing topsoil and washing down buildings, and all areas at which radiation levels > 1 mSv/year were measured would be cleaned. Previously it had been intended only to act where in the case of levels of > 5 mSv/year.

No-entry zones and evacuation zones designated by the government would be the responsibility of the government.

The rest of the areas would be cleaned by local authorities.

In areas with radiation levels > 20 mSv/year, decontamination would be done step by step.

Within two years, radiation levels between 5─20 mSv/year should be cut down to 60%.

There has been opposition to the plan by cattle-farmers in the Iwate Prefecture who feared that the sale of cattle would fall, once the area had been labelled as contaminated, and similarly the tourist-industry in the city of Aizuwakamatsu felt that tourism would be discouraged there. On the other hand, those living in regions with readings of < 1 mSv/year complained that they would not receive a funded decontamination programme³⁹. There are many associated problems, in terms of ruined local economies and according to one survey, one third of former residents of a lush village called Litate, resplendent in its fresh produce, never want to return there, while half would prefer to be compensated so they can move to farm elsewhere in Japan.

Building an “ice-wall”, and increasing the storage capacity for contaminated water.

Under the orders of the Japanese government, TEPCO commenced its plans to construct an “ice-wall” around the reactor buildings to limit the influx of groundwater to them⁴⁰. The wall will be 1.4-km long and will be created by sinking pipes into the ground, through which freezing fluid is circulated, gradually forming a barrier of permafrost 30 m deep, down to the bedrock, thus forcing the water to drain into the sea instead. It is thought that this should be finished during the first half of the Japanese fiscal year 2015 (i.e. from April 1^st, 2015 to March 31^st 2016). $470 million has been pledged for the project by the Japanese government, including $150 million to reduce contamination of the stored water to a level at which it can be dumped at sea. The International Atomic Energy Agency is has approved the strategy. Such an ice wall is not a new idea, and they have been used extensively in the U.S., e.g. to secure mine shafts and contain contamination. TEPCO has also been instructed to build tanks with a total capacity of 800,000 tonnes (up from the 330,000 tonnes capacity that existed at the end of May, 2012) to store radioactive water, which are expected to be completed by the end of the 2016 fiscal year.

Disposal of materials and safe extraction of caesium

A study⁴¹ was reported on the "safe incineration of contaminated wastes while restricting the release of volatile caesium to the atmosphere", which involved the construction of a modified incinerator that enabled the combustion of a variety of contaminated materials while minimizing the release of toxic substances into the atmosphere, including caesium. From the incinerated materials was derived wood ash - from evergreen trees and deciduous trees - household garbage ash, and sludge ash, which needed to be decontaminated of its caesium concentration before it could be disposed of. The simplest method would be dissolving the caesium out with water, and it was found that by using a 1:25 ash to water ratio, and mixing for 10 minutes, at 40°C, about 93% of the originally present caesium was removed. Since toxic heavy metal cations were removed simultaneously during the process, the ash was clean enough to be put back into the environment. Similar results were found for household ash. Sludge ash proved much more difficult to handle than the other two, and due to the presence of clay particles, which tended to retain the caesium more strongly, necessitating the use of 0.5 M nitric or sulphuric acids in the ratio 1:100 (ash:acid), mixed for one hour, at 95°C, which resulted in the removal of 82.3% of the caesium originally present in the sludge.

Impacts on health.

Although around 18,500 people died from the earthquake and tsunami, there were no deaths from short term radiation exposure. Any future deaths from cancer as a consequence of the Fukishima accident are estimated to be statistically insignificant. Just 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers at Chernobyl have so far developed leukemia, and not all of these can be ascribed to the accident itself. Using a linear no-threshold model (LNT model), workers from Stanford University suggest that an ultimate total of 130 cancer deaths might be expected as a consequence of Fukushima10, although there is some dissent⁴² as to the validity of the model which did not prove reliable in predicting the number of casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In 2013, on the basis of the LNT model (which assumes that any degree of radiation exposure will impact negatively on health) the WHO concluded that the levels of exposure to those populations who were evacuated, were so low that no significant health effects should be expected¹¹. The WHO further concluded that for those living in the vicinity of the Fukushima NPP the risk of developing thyroid cancer is increased by 70%, and of breast cancer by 6%, for females exposed as infants. Males exposed as infants were reckoned to have a 7% higher than average risk of leukemia. The lifetime absolute baseline chance of developing thyroid cancer in females is 0.75%, which is raised to 1.25% by the radiation-induced cancer chance, which is the source of the “70% greater risk” statistic¹². 44 children were newly diagnosed¹³ with thyroid cancer, and other cancers by August 2013, in the overall Fukushima prefecture area, but the connection to radiation exposure is presently unknown. Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986 a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates was observed. Thus, there was nothing greater than the baseline value (prior to the accident) of ca 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year, prior to the period 1989─1991, (i.e. 3─5 years following the accident) in both the children and adolescent age groups⁴³. Accordingly, if the same effect prevails for Fukushima, any increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer is not to be expected to manifest itself until a similar period after the accident occurred, in 2011 (i.e. during the years 2014─2016). Thyroid cancer responds well to treatment (96% survival rate), and for example, of the 4,000 cases of the disease in children and adolescents diagnosed from 1989─2005 in the Chernobyl region, there have been 9 fatalities, which implies a > 99% rate of survival⁴⁴.

Energy policy implications

Only two of Japan's nuclear reactors were still running by March 2012; some of those shut-down had been damaged by the quake and tsunami. Although local governments had been authorized to re-start those reactors that were serviceable after routine maintenance, it was local opposition that prevented this happening. An opinion poll held in June 2011, found that almost three quarters of a sample of 1,980 respondents were in favour of Japan closing all 54 of its reactors and becoming a nuclear-free nation. As a result of the loss of 30% of its electricity generating capacity from nuclear, Japan has become far more reliant on oil and coal. Immediately following the accident, and power rationing was introduced in nine prefectures served by TEPCO⁴⁵. Major companies were asked by the Japanese government to reduce their power consumption⁴⁶ by up to 30%: some of whom moved their employees’ weekends to weekdays in an effort to stabilize demand for electricity⁴⁶. It was reported in October 2013, that nine Japanese electricity companies, including Tokyo Electric Power Company, are outlaying more to cover the costs of imported fuel to the tune of ca 3.6 trillion yen, or $37 billion, as compared with the year immediately preceding the accident 2010, to compensate for the electricity that would previously have been provided by nuclear⁴⁷. One option is for Japan to become nuclear-free by switching to oil- and gas-based power production, and yet this would cost tens of billions of dollars annually: and a soaring cost, as the price of a barrel of oil is now above $100, and is expected to rise inexorably over the coming years, and global conventional crude oil production declines.

Not surprisingly, there is an opinion, held by a number of analysts of energy policy, that the way forward is for Japan to go all-out for renewable energy. It has been estimated that Japan has a total of 324 GW of achievable potential in the form of onshore and offshore wind turbines (222 GW), geothermal power plants (70 GW), additional hydroelectric capacity (26.5 GW), solar energy (4.8 GW) and agricultural residue (1.1 GW)⁴⁸. Accordingly, there are afoot plans to construct a floating wind farm, as a pilot project, with six 2 MW turbines, off the Fukushima coast⁴⁹, and there is an ongoing evaluation phase, expected to be finalized in 2016, as a result of which Japan may build up to 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."⁴⁹. An expansion of (photovoltaic) solar energy is expected too, and the company Canadian Solar is looking to build a factory in Japan with a manufacturing capacity of 150 megawatts of solar panels a year⁵⁰.

Fukushima nuclear clean-up enters critical phase

In November 2013, TEPCO began removing more than 1,500 fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pool inside the No 4 reactor⁵¹. The tank contains 1,331 spent and 202 fresh assemblies weighing a total of 400 tonnes, and there are concerns that another earthquake, such as that of magnitude 9.0, as occurred on March 11^th, 2011 could cause the fuel pool to collapse, with the potential for a very serious leakage of radioactive material into the atmosphere. It is a tricky procedure, however, especially if the assembles come into contact with one another or are exposed to the air. If the level of water in the tank were to drop significantly for some reason, the fuel could begin to heat-up. Having been removed from the tank, the fuel rods are placed in batches in dry casks, and these are then lowered to ground level and transported to a safer storage site nearby. It is hoped that the task will be completed by the end of 2014.

References.

(1) https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c01.html

(2) http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Chernobyl-Accident-and-Its-Consequences

(3) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

(4) http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/explainer-what-went-wrong-in-japans-nuclear-reactors

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

(6) Von Hippel, F.N. (2011) "The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67, 27–36.

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

(8) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident/

(9) http://www.hyer.eu/news/regional-news/hydrogen-in-nuclear-accidents-what-is-the-role-of-the-gas-in-fukushima

(10) http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdf

(11) http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf

(12) http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv

(13) http://rt.com/news/fukushima-children-thyroid-cancer-783/

(14) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0316/Meltdown-101-Why-is-Fukushima-crisis-still-out-of-control

(15) http://allthingsnuclear.org/more-on-spent-fuel-pools-at-fukushima/

(16) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircaloy

(17) http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2012/1204659_1870.html

(18) https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

(19) http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-fallout-of-fear-1.12194

(20) http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-measurements-by-the-ctbto/fukushima-related-measurements-by-the-ctbto-page-1/

(21) http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN-NI-Impact_accident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf

(22) http://rt.com/news/radiation-levels-soar-fukushima-839/

(23) http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11386

(24) http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201307290043

(25) http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/08/breaking-jp-gov-admitted-300-tones-of-contaminated-water-flows-to-the-pacific-every-single-day/

(26) http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201308100048

(27) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24100-should-fukushimas-radioactive-water-be-dumped-at-sea.html#.UoHt8-Iylco

(28) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/inside-fukushima--for-the-most-delicate-stage-of-the-cleanup-yet-8929670.html

(29) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/01/fukushima-radiation-levels-higher-japan

(30) http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201309130047

(31) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/japan-fukushima-radiation-idUSL2N0H80XY20130912

(32) Funabashi, Y. and Kitazawa, K. (2012) Fukushima in review: a complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. March 1, 1-13. http://www.jsmillerdesign.com/FukushimaPapers/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Atomic%20Scientists-2012-Funabashi-0096340212440359.pdf

(33) http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/fukushimareport.html

(34) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/toshiba-idUSL3E7F73E720110407

(35) Kazuaki, N. "Public mulls Noda's definition of 'safe'”, Japan Times, 9 March 2012, p. 1.

(36) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-noda-idUSTRE79J3W020111020

(37) http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110712/full/475154a.html

(38) Rhodes, C.J. (2013) Bioremediation and phytoremediation. Sci. Prog., 96, 417-427

(39) http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1324357922P.pdf

(40) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

(41) Parajuli, D. et al. (2013) "Dealing with the Aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Decontamination of Radioactive Cesium Enriched Ash". Env. Sci. Technol., 47, 3800-3808.

(42) Normile, D. (2011). "Fukushima Revives the Low-Dose Debate". Science, 332, 908–910.

(43) http://www.hormones.gr/521/article/article.html

(44) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

(45) http://www.news.com.au/world/neon-city-goes-dim-as-power-shortage-threatens-traffic-lights-and-telephones-in-tokyo/story-e6frfkyi-1226021645448

(46) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setsuden

(47) http://www.upiasia.com/Top-News/2013/06/02/60000-protest-Japans-plan-to-restart-nuclear-power-plants/UPI-34961370197818/

(48) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contesting_the_Future_of_Nuclear_Power

(49) http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1211680/floating-turbines---japan-enters-stage

(50) http://www.smh.com.au/world/japan-starts-up-offshore-wind-farm-near-fukushima-20131112-2xct0.html

(51) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-spent-fuel

Can Free Radicals be Good for You?

This article was published in the journal Science Progress, of which I am an Editor, and to which I contribute a quarterly Current Commentary, on some pertinent and contemporary aspect of science or technology. This time I discuss how toxic free radicals really are, and whether taking antioxidants and other dietary supplements can "protect" us from them, or indeed if they are actually beneficial to us under some circumstances.

A pdf version of the article can be downloaded from this link http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/sciprg/2011/00000094/00000004/art00004. On here it seems to work ok if you set the "page size" to 100%.

Free Radicals – the Bad Guys.

It is widely held¹ that free radicals are involved in the initiation and propagation of many and various illnesses, including cancer, heart disease, stroke, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis (MS). The list runs on, and even the process of ageing itself is believed to be driven by free radicals, also called Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) or Reactive Oxygen Intermediates (ROI). Now, the species classified as ROS or ROI are derived from molecular oxygen (O₂) which obviously we need to breathe to stay alive. In the main, ROS are the superoxide radical anion (O₂^−•), its conjugate acid, the hydroperoxyl radical (HOO^•), the hydroxyl radical (HO^•), organic peroxyl radicals (ROO^•), alkoxyl radicals (RO^•) as bona fide free radical (unpaired electron) molecules, but also included on the list are molecular (especially, singlet) oxygen (O₂), organic hydroperoxides, ROOH and hydrogen peroxide itself, H₂O₂. It can be said that all oxygen free radicals are ROS/ROI but not all ROS/ROI are free radicals. As respired O₂ enters living cells it is metabolised e.g. by the mitochondria to O₂^−•, which is not in itself strongly oxidising, but it provides a source of other ROS. To avoid living cells being overwhelmed by O₂^−•, they contain the enzyme superoxide dismutase which catalyses the reaction (equation 1):

2O₂^−• + 2H⁺ → H₂O₂ + O₂                                         (1)

Now H₂O₂ is not harmless in cells since it can provide a source of HO^• radicals, particularly if there is free iron present, which promotes the Fenton Reaction (equation 2):

Fe²⁺ + H₂O₂ → Fe³⁺ + HO^• + ⁻OH                           (2)

HO^• radicals can attack sensitive molecules in cells, including membrane lipids, carbohydrates and proteins, and if they are formed in the cell nucleus, DNA bases too, potentially leading to strand-breaks and cell mutations. The attack of HO^• and other kinds of radicals on lipids can initiate the process known as lipid peroxidation, which is responsible for the rancidification of foodstuffs including meat. That our human “meat” does not become rancid while we remain alive is due to the fact that living cells contain antioxidants, In particular, catalase which is a common enzyme found in nearly all living organisms that are exposed to oxygen. Catalase is able to catalyse the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen, and has one of the highest turnover numbers of all enzymes - one catalase molecule can convert 40 million molecules of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen per second. Glutathione peroxidise also catalyses the decomposition of H₂O₂ via the reaction by coupling its reduction to water with oxidation of reduced glutathione (GSH), a thiol-containing tripeptide (glu-cys-gly) (equation 3):

H₂O₂ + 2GSH → GSSG + 2H₂O                             (3)

The product, oxidized glutathione (GSSG), contains a disulphide bridge, and can be converted back to GSH by glutathione reductase enzymes. It is now thought that peroxiredoxins may be even more important² in removing H₂O₂ from cells in animals, bacteria, and probably plants. There are at least three classes of these enzymes, but in the function of all of them an cys-SH group present on the peroxiredoxin is oxidised by H₂O₂ to a sulfenic acid, cys-SOH. The interception of ROS is not perfect and around 1% of respired O₂ ends-up as ROS. Over a year this amounts to 1.7 kg of ROS, since humans are fairly large animals and breathe substantial amounts of oxygen. To cope with what ROS remain, there are both intrinsic and extrinsic antioxidants present in cells, the latter being brought into the living organism and hence its cells by ingestion, i.e. in our food and in the form of deliberately taken dietary supplements. The effectiveness of latter is debatable, however, as shall shortly become evident. Many molecules that are designated as antioxidants possess phenolic groups, e.g. the vitamin-E series and compounds present in green tea, principally epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG). It is thought that such materials can act as chain-breaking antioxidants, in which the chain of free radical propagation is “broken” by transfer of an H-atom from a phenolic OH moiety to an ROO^• radical (equation 4):

ArOH + ROO^• → ArO^• + ROOH                               (4)

This effectively deactivates the ROO^• radical from abstracting an H-atom from a lipid unit to give a carbon-centred radical, which by the addition of O₂ would form another ROO^• radical to propagate the autoxidation process (equation 5):

ROO^• + RH → ROOH + R^•                                       (5)

The door to the field of free-radical toxicology was set open in the proposal by Gerschman et al. in 1954³ that oxygen poisoning and the effect of X-irradiation on animals had a common mechanism which involved the formation of free radicals. Two years later, Denham Harman suggested that the ageing process too was mediated by free radicals.⁴ The abstracts of these two classic papers are as follows:

Abstract: A consideration of various isolated reports in the literature has led us to the hypothesis that oxygen poisoning and radiation injury have at least one common basis of action, possibly through the formation of oxidizing free radicals. This article reviews the pertinent material that led to this hypothesis and also presents the supporting evidence obtained from (i) experiments on the protective action against oxygen poisoning by substances of varied chemical nature known to increase resistance to irradiation, and (ii) experiments on the survival in oxygen of mice irradiated and exposed to high oxygen tensions simultaneously or at different intervals.³

Abstract: This paper describes a theory about mechanisms of aging that is based on free radical chemistry: "Aging and the degenerative diseases associated with it are attributed basically to the deleterious side attacks of free radicals on cell constituents and on the connective tissues. The free radicals probably arise largely through reactions involving molecular oxygen catalyzed in the cell by oxidative enzymes and in the connective tissues by traces of metals such as iron, cobalt, and manganese.⁴

These ideas and their broader ramifications underwent a gestation period, with periodic mention, leading to a seminal paper by Trevor Slater and his colleagues in which an explanation for the toxicity of carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄), principally to the liver, was advanced in terms of a free-radical mechanism.⁵ For those chronically exposed to “carbon tet” over lengthly periods, damage to the liver was not infrequent and in some cases, liver failure occurred, in addition to neurotoxic effects of CCl₄, and potential links to liver cancer and kidney cancer. CCl₄ used to be widely employed in the dry cleaning industry and was also commonly used as an organic solvent, but due to its toxicity has been largely superseded by safer materials. The mechanism of activation involves a reductive elimination of Cl⁻ from CCl₄, (e.g. by cytochrome P450 enzymes) which forms a CCl₃^• radical. The CCl₃^• radicals can then add O₂ to form CCl₃OO^• radicals, which are particularly reactive versions of peroxyl radicals. This enhanced reactivity can be viewed in terms of the limiting canonical structures: CCl₃OO^• <--> CCl₃O^+•O⁻ which for common ROO^• radicals, normally contribute around 50:50 to the overall structure. However, the three strongly electron withdrawing Cl-atoms tend to disfavour the second structure, with the positive charge on the O-atom adjacent to the CCl₃-group, and so the unpaired electron becomes increasingly localised onto the terminal O-atom according to an increased weighting of the limiting structure CCl₃OO^•.⁶ An increased localisation or “exposure” of the unaired electron tends to engender a more reactive radical character and so the H-atom abstraction reaction (equation 5) is facilitated. Thus the lipid peroxidation process overall is encouraged, causing severe damage to the liver cells so that the organ becomes cirrhotic and ultimately fails.

Good Free Radicals?

Recent research⁷ published from King’s College in London indicates that mice deliberately bred to possess more of an enzyme (NADPH oxidase-4) that actually produces ROS, including free radicals, suffered less heart disease than animals in which the enzyme had been “deleted”. This rather runs counter to the prevailing argument espoused above but it is thought that exposure to ROS can actually “toughen-up” an organism, so that it becomes more resistant to certain conditions like cardiovascular disease. It is well known that ROS, including superoxide, can act as cell-messengers, and so in concentrations that do not overwhelm the protective antioxidative capacity of the organism may be beneficial. Some of the ROS may act as signalling agents to operate protective pathways, for example in enhancing myocardial angiogenesis, which is the physiological process involving the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels. The latter is a critical determinant of cardiac adaptation to overload stress. Several years ago, another group of London researchers, this time from University College (UCL), reported that the basic theory underlying the toxicity of oxygen radicals is flawed.⁸ White blood cells, or leukocytes (also spelled "leucocytes", leuco- Ancient Greek "white"), are cells of the immune system that participate in defending the body against infectious diseases and xenobiotics (foreign agents). Five different kinds of leukocytes are known, all of them stemming from a multipotent cell termed a haematopoietic stem cell, which exists in bone marrow. Leukocytes are found throughout the body, and are present in the blood and lymphatic system, with a typical lifetime of 3 – 4 days. Leukocytes comprise ca 1% of the blood of a healthy adult, and the leukocyte count is often an indicator of disease, being raised (leukocytosis) above the normal levels of 4×10⁹ - 1.1×10¹⁰ white blood cells/litre. The name "white blood cell" derives from the observation that after a blood sample has been centrifuged, the white cells are found in the buffy coat, a thin layer of nucleated cells between the sedimented red blood cells and the blood plasma, which is normally white in appearance.

Leukocytes produce oxygen ROS, and the process by which they do so is vital for killing microbes efficiently. In some people, the process is defective, rendering them liable to chronic, severe and often fatal infections. Accordingly, the inference has been drawn that the ROS are themselves highly toxic, and must be harmful to human tissues if they are sufficiently virulent to kill organisms as robust as bacteria and fungi. In contrast, the UCL group found that it was not ROS that made white blood cells so destructive but the release of enzymes (proteases) with the power to digest foreign invading species. The enzymes are triggered by a flow of K⁺ cations within the cell. When the process was blocked using iberiotoxin (derived from scorpion venom) and paxilline (a fungal mycotoxin), the cells were no longer able to combat pathogens, demonstrating that the ROS are not as toxic as previously thought.⁸ The paper concludes: “These data have significance beyond the inherent value of defining the precise molecular mechanisms involved in a physiological process of paramount importance to survival. The perception that neutrophils kill microbes through toxic oxygen radicals and their metabolites provided much of the biological basis for the theories relating the toxicity of oxygen radicals to the pathogenesis of a wide variety of human diseases, and the development of antioxidant drugs for their treatment. These theories and treatment merit re-evaluation.”

Noteworthy too is a study⁹ by researchers at McGill’s Department of Biology, who tested the accepted “free radical theory of ageing” by creating mutant worms with an increased production of ROS in their bodies. It was found that in contrast to the expected outcome, the worms lived longer than regular worms. Even more significantly, when the mutant worms were treated with antioxidants, e.g Vitamin C, their lifetimes were shortened. The researchers then sought to mimic the apparent beneficial effect of the free radicals by treating regular, wild worms with Paraquat, a herbicide that generates superoxide and hence other ROS, by redox-cycling. Paraquat is so toxic to humans and animals that it is banned in the European Union and its use is restricted in many other parts of the world. Remarkably, they discovered that the worms lived longer after being exposed to paraquat. It is thought that in the genetically modified worms, the production of ROS can help to trigger the body’s general protective and repair mechanisms, thus acting to preserve life. Whether one can extrapolate these results for worms to far more complex organisms such as humans is a moot point, of course.

Antioxidant Supplements.

It is widely held that a “Mediterranean Diet” is very healthy since the incidences of cancer and cardiovascular diseases in the Mediterranean are lower than in the colder northern countries. This is the basis of the “five a day” diet, in which it is recommended that we consume five 80g portions of fruit and vegetables daily. An explanation for this, which has entered the public consciousness, is that a diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables is full of antioxidants and by mopping-up free radicals is protective against these particular maladies. This must be qualified by a recent European study which found a relatively small reduction in the overall cancer rate according to their intake of fruit and vegetables in a sample of almost half a million people.¹⁰ However, in an extension of this line of thinking, a massive multi-billion dollar industry has uprisen which supplies pure antioxidant compounds in the form of pills and capsules to be taken as dietary supplements. In the U.S. alone, more than half of all adults take some form of vitamin or mineral supplement, at a cost of £23 billion/year.¹¹ Now, not only is there precious little hard scientific evidence that taking these compounds additionally and above what is present in the diet actually does any good, it is quite possible that in too high a dose some of them can have adverse effects. The pioneer protagonist of such dietary supplementation was Linus Pauling who recommended taking Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) in large amounts. He did live to be 93.

L-ascorbic acid (or L-ascorbate) is an essential nutrient for humans and certain other animal species.¹² In living organisms ascorbate is thought to act as an antioxidant by protecting the body against oxidative stress. Ascorbate is a cofactor in at least eight enzyme catalysed reactions, including a number involved in collagen synthesis, and when they do not function properly the disease known as scurvy arises. In animals these reactions are especially important in wound-healing and in preventing bleeding from capillaries. The nickname given by Americans to the English, “Limeys”, derives from the practice of taking lime-fruits on board ships in the British Navy so that sailors could drink the juice (which is now known to contain Vitamin C) and offset the symptoms of scurvy which had formerly beset them on long sea voyages. While the daily recommended dose of 40 – 95 mg/day is sufficient for the needs of a human adult, doses of 10 -100 times this amount have been advocated by some practitioners. There is, however, no clinical evidence that such megadoses protect against developing cancer, coronary disease or the common cold, and indeed might be harmful, e.g. in promoting kidney failure.¹² Most of the excess Vitamin C is simply excreted from the body (occasioning diarrhoea) so it is unlikely to do much good.

The most infamous case of a dietary supplement proving actually harmful is the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) in which daily β-carotene (30 mg) and retinyl palmitate (25 000 IU) were given to 18,314 participants who were at high risk for lung cancer because of a history of smoking or asbestos exposure.¹³ The study was stopped ahead of schedule in January 1996 because participants who were randomly assigned to receive the active intervention were found to have a 28% increase in incidence of lung cancer, a 17% higher death-rate and a higher rate of death from cardiovascular disease compared with participants in the placebo group. The notion that beta-carotene could be protective against cancer stemmed from the observation made in the 1970s that people who ate a lot of carrots had a lower cancer rate than the average. I seem to remember that drinking carrot-juice was quite popular at this time, and that some people who overdid their consumption of it found their skin turned orange in places! However, there are many other substances present in actual plant material, which might act in some as yet unknown fashion in regard to inhibiting the development of cancer. In the early 1990s, trials of Vitamin E looked to be a resounding success in regard to preventing heart disease. In two studies involving over 127,000 people, it was found that those who consumed a diet rich in Vitamin E had a significantly (40%) lower incidence of cardiovascular disease than those who didn’t. It was found that the addition of Vitamin E to blood samples in vitro seemed to protect LDLs against oxidation, which was believed to be a central modality in the development of heart disease. Sales of Vitamin E soared, with 23 million Americans taking it by the end of the decade, and yet the results of various studies on Vitamin E supplements rather than as present naturally in the diet, are inconsistent in terms of overall health benefits.^11,14

The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene (ATBC) Trial¹⁴ was a cancer prevention study conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Public Health Institute of Finland from 1985 to 1993. It’s aim was to determine whether certain vitamin supplements would prevent lung cancer and other cancers in a group of 29,133 male smokers in Finland. The participants (aged 50-69) took a pill daily over a period of 5-8 years containing either: 50 milligrams (mg) alpha-tocopherol (a form of Vitamin E), 20 mg of beta-carotene (a precursor of vitamin A), both, or a placebo. The main results were as follows, and might be described as “mixed” in their benefits:

•  Men who took beta-carotene had an 18% increased incidence of lung cancer and an overall death rate of 8%. Vitamin E had no effect on the incidence of lung cancer or overall mortality. Similar results were found for taking both supplements to those taking beta-carotene alone.

 •  The effects of beta-carotene appeared more adverse in men with a relatively modest alcohol intake (more than 11 grams per day; 15 grams of alcohol is equivalent to one drink) and in those smoking at least 20 cigarettes daily.

•  Those taking vitamin E had 32% fewer cases of prostate cancer and the death-rate from prostate cancer was reduced by 41%. However, death from hemorrhagic stroke was increased by 50% in men taking alpha-tocopherol supplements, primarily among those with high blood pressure.

 •  The results of both the trial and post-trial follow-up of the ATBC Study, in conjunction with results from the CARET Study (Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial) completed in 1996, continue to support the recommendation that beta-carotene supplementation should be avoided by smokers. The possible preventive effects of alpha-tocopherol on prostate cancer require confirmation in other ongoing trials.¹⁴

Can Vitamin Supplements Cut the Benefits of Exercise?

To explore the possibility that antioxidants might interfere with the beneficial effects of ROS in preventing cellular damage after exercise, Michael Ristow⁹ at the University of Jena in Germany and his colleagues recruited 40 volunteers, and asked half of them to take 1000 milligrams of vitamin C and 400 international units of vitamin E per day. These quantities are equivalent to the amounts present in some vitamin supplements. The volunteers were also asked to exercise for 85 minutes a day, five days a week, for four weeks. The results from muscle biopsies showed a two-fold increase in a marker of ROS called TBARS (thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances) in those volunteers who didn't take antioxidants, but no increase in those who did take the supplements, in line with the accepted picture that ROS are generated during exercise and that antioxidants intercept them.

It is well known that exercise can promote a reduction in insulin resistance, which is a precursor condition to type 2 diabetes. However, when Ristow's team measured the effects of exercise on insulin sensitivity, they found no reduction in those volunteers who were taking antioxidants, but a significant decrease in those not taking them. Thus it might be concluded that antioxidants are preventing the health effects of exercise, though it should be noted that not all vitamin supplements contain such high doses of vitamin C and E, which are also far higher than would be obtained from eating the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables.  The positive effect on health from eating fruit and vegetables may be because they contain other protective compounds, and taking vitamin supplements is no substitute for them. Malcolm Jackson at the University of Liverpool is reported as commenting⁹: "These data are fully in accord with recent work on the actions of ROS in cells, although clearly at odds with the popular concept that dietary antioxidants are inevitably beneficial."

Antioxidant Therapies?

The issue of antioxidants acting as defenders of the body against ROS has been extended to their use in medical therapies.¹⁵ If antioxidants present in the diet can protect against damage to the organism by ROS and the development of various diseases, it might be plausible to treat various illnesses with antioxidants. This at least goes the line of reasoning, which is similar to the case for taking dietary antioxidant supplements, although as we have seen this is a fairly weak case at best. However, few antioxidants including edaravone (to treat ischaemic stroke in Japan) have found accepted clinical use. Moreover, many well-known substances including antioxidant vitamins (A, C and E), and more recently developed materials like nitrones (also used as spin-traps for radicals in Electron Spin Resonance investigations¹⁶) have not unanimously passed the scrutiny of clinical trials that they are effective in the prevention and treatment of various diseases. To date, there have been several large (>7,000 participants) clinical trials aimed to test the effectiveness of antioxidants as cancer prevention agents specifically, none of which have been convincing.¹⁷ A recent review¹⁸ emphasises the complexity of cancer and its development and the importance of eliminating as far as possible exposure to environmental carcinogens including carcinogenic metals, concluding that “prevention, as in all threatening aspects of life, being better than cure.”

Positive Roles for ROS?

As noted, antioxidant defences are not 100% effective, since oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids can be proven to occur in all aerobes under ambient levels of O₂. A simple explanation for why nature has not developed a means to soak-up all ROS is that they perform important roles. It is likely that evolution had to evolve a compromise of antioxidant defences that allow such roles to be played while minimizing oxidative damage.  ROS production in animals by phagocytes and by other cells in the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts act to defend against microorganisms. It is well-established² that cellular processes are regulated by phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of enzymes and transcription factors, and as has become clear more lately, such regulation by oxidation and reduction (redox regulation) is just as important. Moreover, the two systems cross talk, i.e. the redox state of the cell influences phosphorylation, and vice versa. Binding of ligands to growth factor receptors on animal cells activates protein kinases that then phosphorylate and activate subsequent proteins in the signal cascade. Frequently and simultaneously, cellular ROS levels increase and aid the signalling mechanism. ROS tend not to stimulate phosphorylation directly but rather they increase net phosphorylation by inhibiting protein dephosphorylation. Protein phosphatase enzymes function in cells, but can be inactivated by attack from ROS. The ligand binding increases kinase activity, and the ROS assist by transiently inactivating phosphatases. As a source of ROS, the ligand may increase O₂^•– production, e.g. by activating suproxide-producing NADPH oxidase enzymes. These were originally described in phagocytes, but are now known to be widespread in animal and plant cells. When cells are exposed to additional amounts of H₂O₂ such as at a site of injury or inflammation or when NADPH oxidase enzymes are activated, the peroxiredoxins are partially inactivated to allow signalling. The cell smartly makes more peroxiredoxin, and reactivates the inactive form, so that the extra H₂O₂ can be removed once it has served its purpose.² Rather than being a consequence of a leakage of electrons, mitochondrial H₂O₂ production may provide a signal to the cytoplasm and nucleus of mitochondrial activity, leading to changes in nuclear gene transcription via redox regulation and phosphorylation of transcription factors.

Conclusions.

Humans have evolved in an atmosphere containing 21% O₂, and derived therefrom, ROS are ubiquitous in ourselves and other animals, and in plants and aerobic bacteria.  Over the long human lifespan, continual and accumulated damage by ROS may contribute to the age-related development of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and many other disorders which ultimately urge our decline and demise. As we age, the repair of this damage seems to become less efficient. It is interesting that the concentration of oxidised protein taken from different human tissues and from rats and flies, creatures of far shorter longevity than humans, is almost constant up to about half the life-span of the species, whereupon it accumulates rapidly, and dramatically so during the last third of the lifespan.¹⁹ In terms of a human lifespan it would seem that after around the age of 40 we oxidise profoundly and inexorably. Whether this is a cause or a consequence of ageing is arguable, since as we have seen that elevated levels of ROS appeared to extend the lives of worms while treatment with antioxidants shortened them.  It is likely that ROS act as agents to kill microbes and protect us against infection, although we have noted one study that showed it was the release of proteolytic enzymes rather than ROS from white blood cells that enabled them to combat pathogens.⁸ ROS also play an essential and exquisite role in cell signalling mechanisms. Thus ROS may help to preserve us until our own reproductive years are concluded and the next generation has reached maturity, i.e. after the age when severe oxidation sets-in at around 40. Evolution is thoroughly pragmatic and unsentimental about such matters. The evidence is poor^20,21 that taking vitamin supplements unequivocally protects us against diseases and that therapies against cancer and other diseases using antioxidants is effective. Indeed, smokers should be very careful about taking some supplements, particularly beta-carotene, which appears to increase the incidence of lung-cancer.^13,14 When people are actually deficient in a vitamin, giving them extra quantities up to the recommended daily amount appears beneficial, but this may have nothing to do with the antioxidant activity of the compound which may serve a variety of biological functions.

Although there is convincing evidence from a study of nearly 500,000 subjects that consuming more than 200g of fruit and vegetables per day does protect us against developing cancer, the effect is quite small (3%).¹⁰ This, nonetheless, translates into around 7,200 cancer cases each year just in the U.K. which if prevented represents a considerable saving to the N.H.S. especially in these stringent times. It is possible that the effect of eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables may offer some protection against cancer by some other means than the antioxidant content of these foods.^20,21 Moreover, perhaps it is the “Mediterranean Lifestyle” overall that matters, and not only the diet. It is notable that much higher intakes of ca 600g/day appeared to give a protection of as much as 11% against developing cancer.¹⁰ However, the sample was much smaller and it seems likely that the lifestyle of anyone with such eating patterns differed in other respects too: less smoking and less drinking alcohol, less meat and less saturated fat, less body fat, higher dietary fibre, more exercise, and possibly a less stressful approach to life. It is likely that the human body has been adapted by evolution to adjust the balance between ROS and antioxidants so finely that the intake of additional antioxidants has but a minor influence, and so the degree of oxidative damage is little reduced. In a way, it is reminiscent of the concept of “inbuilt obsolescence”, that we cannot live forever and are designed not too, to make way for the newer and fresher generation on whom we may place our hopes.

References.

(1) Halliwell, B. and Gutteridge, J.M.C. (2007), Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, 4^th Edition, Oxford University Press U.S.A.

(2) Halliwell, B. (2006) Reactive Species and Antioxidants. Redox Biology Is a Fundamental Theme of Aerobic Life. Plant Physiology 141, 312-322.

(3) R. Gerschman, D. L. Gilbert, S. W. Nye, P. Dwyer, W. O. Fenn, Oxygen Poisoning and X-irradiation: A Mechanism in Common. Science 119, 623-626 (1954).

(4) Denham Harman, Aging: A Theory Based on Free Radical and Radiation Chemistry. J. Gerontol. 11, 298-300 (1956).

(5) Slater, T.F. (1966) In vitro effects of carbon tetrachloride on rat-liver microsomes. Biochem. J. 101, 16p.

(6) Rhodes, C.J. and Dintinger, T.C. (1999) ESR Studies of Lipids, in Spectral Analysis of Lipids, R.Hamilton and J.Cast, eds., Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

(7) Zhang, M. et al. (2010) NADPH oxidase-4 mediates protection against chronic overload load-induced stress on mouse hearts by enhancing angiogenesis. PNAS, 107, 18121-18126.

(8) Ahluwalla, J et al. (2004) The large-conductance Ca²⁺-activated K⁺ channel is essential for innate immunity. Nature, 427, 853-857.

(9) Free Radicals Good For You? Banned Herbicide Makes Worms Live Longer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101220084442.htm

(10) Boffetta, P. et al. (2010), Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Overall Cancer Risk in the European Prospective Investigation Into cancer and Nutrition. JNCI, 102, 529-437.

(11) Melton, L. (2006) The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale. New Scientist, August 5^th, 40-43. http://dcscience.net/The%20antioxidant%20myth.pdf

(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C

(13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15572756

(14) http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/qa/2003/atbcfollowupqa

 (15) Firuzi, O. et al. (2011) Antioxidant Therapy: Current Status and Future Prospects. Curr. Med. Chem., 18, in press.

(16) Rhodes, C.J. (2011) Electron spin resonance. Part one: A diagnostic method in the biomedical sciences. Sci. Prog., 94, 16-96.

(17) Goodman, M. et al. (2011) Clinical trials of antioxidants as cancer prevention agents: past, present and future. Free Rad. Biol. Med., 51, 1068-1084.

(18) Valko, M. et al. (2006) Free radicals, metals and antioxidants in oxidative stress-induced cancer. Chemico-Biological Interactions, 160, 1-40.

(19) Levine, R.L. and Stadtman, E.R. (2001) Oxidative modification of proteins during aging. Experimental Gerontology, 36, 1495-1502.

(20) Halliwell, B. (2007) Dietary polyphenols: Good, bad, or indifferent to your health? Cardiovscular Research, 73, 341-347.

(21) Gutteridge, J.M.C and Halliwell, B. (2010) Antioxidants: Molecules, medicines and myths. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 393, 561-56

How to Cut Home Energy Use by One Quarter: "Transition Lifestyles".

Since joining Transition Town Reading, a couple of years ago, we have begun to think carefully about how much energy we use at home. The mandatory installation of a smart-meter has proved a useful aid, as rather like a traffic light system, it goes from green, which is more or less the stand-by situation, through a warning amber, e.g. when we switch the electric kettle on, to red for danger, when the kettle, washing machine and the electric immersion heater have all cut-in together. The price is shown too, which certainly brings home how much of our resources are being consumed at particular moments in time, and by which devices. The figures are given below, so that a comparison can be made for the final two quarters of last year (2012) and this one (2013).

Some figures from our electricity bills:

2013 Q4    Usage 708 kWh cost £105.98
2012 Q4    Usage 942 kWh cost £133.72

2013 Q3    Usage 646 kWh cost £101.06
2012 Q3    Usage 839 kWh cost £121.55

The way electricity is priced can appear to have a somewhat nebulous quality, and so it is more meaningful to look at the kWh figures directly, rather than to try and use cost as a gauge of energy usage. As a matter of fact, we changed tariff in July/August, and while the current tariff includes a standing charge, the previous one did not. Our current tariff charges 12.39p/kWh. The previous tariff charged one price for the first 25% of the electricity used and a different one for the remainder. In price terms, the differential is 20.7% and 16.9%, respectively, for the third and fourth quarters of the years 2012/2013, or an average of 19%, and so we can say that we have knocked a fifth off our electricity bill, which is no mean feat. Yet more strikingly, the kWh figures reveal decreases of 24.8% for the final quarter and 23.0% for the penultimate quarter, and thus we have reduced our actual electricity use by about a quarter, and without experiencing any particular discomfort. So, how have we done it?

As noted, the smart-meter gives a visual alarm of when we are really getting through the juice. Probably this triggers a psychological response to simply switch things off! We have also efficiently draught-proofed the house, putting draught-excluder around the external doors, and closing full-length curtains across the doorways. Another saving is that whereas we used to run the washing machine every day, with just small loads, now we pile it all up and do a (twice) weekly wash, in fact much as folk used to, certainly when we were kids!

We have introduced a "shredded-paper box" which is based on the "hay-box" principle, and we often cook a meal (a stew, say), by getting it started by simmering it on the hob for half an hour, then covering the pot with its lid and putting the whole into the box, which contains shredded paper as an insulating material. The food then cooks (usually overnight) for maybe 12 hours, by which time meat is really tender, and the pot is still warm from the initial input of energy. This is a very efficient way of cooking. Also only one "cook" is involved, it being necessary to merely warm up portions for meals over the next few days, or whenever we want to eat it.

One other deliberate innovation is that, while we used to keep the immersion heater on all the time, now we heat up a tank-full of water and then switch the heater off. The present tank is very well insulated, and will keep water hot for three days or so, by which time we have used most of it anyway. We were alerted to the fact that this tank, which we had installed about a year ago, was much better insulated, and hence gave out much less warmth than its predecessor, when the cat moved out of the airing cupboard. The animal used to spend its winter days asleep in there, kept warm by the water tank, and its energy losses, but now has had to find warmer quarters elsewhere in this domicile.

The main reason for turning the water heater off as much as possible was not to save energy (I have heard the argument that to keep the heater switched on, so that the amount of energy being drawn is regulated by the thermostat, actually uses less energy, but I am not convinced this is true) but rather that since this is a hard-water area, the hot element encourages the lime-scale to precipitate from the water, and onto the element itself. Thus has been the demise of several immersion elements and a few hot water tanks over the past twenty odd years! Only time will tell if this strategy is sound for prolonging the life of the element, which has normally needed replacing every 3 years or so.

The final contribution to using less energy is serendipitous, since we suddenly realised that we no longer (or only rarely) needed to run the dehumidifier. Until about 7 years ago, we had only single-glazing. The result was that when the weather was cold, the moisture from the air used to condense on the window panes overnight, and by morning the windowsills were practically covered by pools of water, which we used to simply mop up with a cloth and wring out into a sink. Then, we had double-glazing installed to provide better insulation. Naturally enough, this worked wonderfully, and to the extent that there was no longer any condensation via the windows, but plenty in the kitchen and especially the bathroom, where mould began to thrive. Thus, for the first time in our many years living here, we bought a dehumidifier, which seemed irksomely ironic, since we were now using more electricity, to cure a problem that we had created by implementing an intended energy-saving strategy in the first place.

On the advice of a local energy consultant and former builder, Dr Tony Cowling, whom we know through being members of Transition Town Reading, each morning, we now open all the windows for about an hour. Although it is counter-intuitive to the uninitiated (as we were) - i.e. thinking that you want to keep the wet, moist air out of the house, especially during the cold, wet, snowy winter period - in fact the air inside the house is always far more humid than that outside. So, open the windows and out it goes! The outcome is that we no longer have mould growing, and there is no need to run the dehumidifier, which saves on electricity.

All in all, this represents an appreciable saving both of energy and money, and really with precious little effort or inconvenience.

What about gas?

As an update (14-4-14) to this article, our gas bill has just arrived for the first quarter of 2014, which compares with the same quarter of the previous year (2013) as follows:

2014 Q1   Usage 1,307.25 kWh  cost £72.39
2013 Q1   Usage 1,927.57 kWh  cost £97.34

Hence, our usage is down 32% on the same period last year which is hardly surprising since we've had mild weather compared with the same period last year. But last year's was slightly down on the previous year as well.

Jumpers and cardigans rule - OK!!!

"University Shambles" Wins Authors Show 2013 Contest.

Winner of the 2013 The Authors Show contest: the novel "University Shambles". http://universityshambles.com

 

Write-up of a Lecture to the Ethical Society, given at Conway Hall, Sunday 3rd of March (2013), 11.00: "How to Ruin the Best University System in the World." Given by Professor Chris Rhodes: author of the novel "University Shambles" http://universityshambles.com (a black comedy).

(First published in the Ethical Record - The Proceedings of the Conway Hall Ethical Society. April 2013, p12-15). 

Tony Blair, shortly after his inauguration in 1997 as Prime Minister of Great Britain famously said that we needed, “Education, Education, Education”, and that 50% of our young people should attend university. It is not clear exactly what analysis produced this proportion exactly, but currently, the figure is 47%, so the wish has almost been fulfilled. The expansion of the university and higher education sector began long before Mr Blair, and by the time Harold Wilson came to power as Prime Minister in 1964, a wave of new universities had already been initiated, including Sussex, York, UEA, Kent, Warwick and Essex, the so called “plate glass” universities. In 1992, shortly after Margaret Thatcher had stepped down as leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, with John Major assuming that role, the binary divide between the universities and the polytechnics was abolished, and the expansion of the entire university sector was urged-on in earnest, and at an unparalleled scale. It is of historical interest, and germane to this discussion, to consider the origins of the various universities, which initially were Oxford, and then Cambridge, followed by the other “ancients”, e.g. St. Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin, acknowledging others, such as Durham and Manchester Victoria in the nineteenth century, with the creation of the red brick universities (Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield) in the first decade of the 20^th century.

The University of London was created in 1836, by the merger of University College and Kings College, and though with older roots, Imperial College was formally established in 1907. In the city’s East End, the educational component of the People's Palace was admitted on an initial three-year trial basis as a School of the University of London on 15 May 1907 as East London College. In 1910 the College's status in the University of London was extended for a further five years, with unlimited membership being conferred in May 1915. The polytechnics were institutions of a different kind, but some can trace their roots back to the mechanics institutes of the 1820s, and the London Polytechnic to 1838. Around 30 new polytechnics were formed in the 1960s expansion of higher education, and it was Tony Crosland - Secretary of State for Education and Science (1965‒67) – who created the “binary system”. Polytechnics focussed more on “high quality vocational work” and initially on engineering and applied science. Their awards, from B.Sc. through to Ph.D., were validated by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). Among the innovations of the polytechnics were “sandwich degrees” and part-time courses, which were especially appropriate for “professions”, such as engineering, town planning, law, architecture, and for training science technicians. There was far less emphasis on research than in the universities, which tended to be “applied” and often connected to local industry.

By about 1973, practically all the university posts had been filled, in many cases by protégés of the great and the good, often with no formal interview, with little demographic chance for new blood for many years to come. The 1970s saw a rise of militancy and industrial strife in Britain, which culminated in the Winter of Discontent in 1979, with rubbish piling up in the streets, bodies going unburied, and power being seized from Labour by the Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, “The Iron Lady”. As part of an effort to control the trade unions, which had run amok in the previous decade, causing Britain’s competitiveness to decline, especially against the ascending Far East, the Thatcher government began to cut subsidies from industries that were deemed unprofitable, e.g. coal and steel production. The result of this was that the number of unemployed rose to 3 million, and as a countermanding measure, during the 1980s, some 2.5 million were taken from this register and placed on invalidity benefit (“on the sick”), thus setting the seeds of the current “benefits culture”, in an act of political manoeuvring but with dire social consequences. The university cuts began in 1981, with four technological universities, Salford, Bradford, Aston and Brunel, each losing >30% of their funding. This rationalisation process would continue under Sir Keith Joseph, Secretary of State for Education and Science. In 1985, Mrs Thatcher was ignominiously denied an honorary degree from her alma mater, the University of Oxford, but in the subsequent rationalisation of the universities, a substantial number of small chemistry and physics departments were closed, and now many universities have neither. Indeed, as Mrs Thatcher put it herself, in 1988: “Can an institution that has neither a physics nor a chemistry department be called a university?”

1992 was a momentous year for two reasons: (1) the binary divide between the polytechnics and the universities was abolished and, (2) the format of the later Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) was introduced. This would ultimately multiply the number of students attending “university” by nearly 400% (2010/11, 47%). However, it also created a bottom layer in a league of (now) 116 universities, while the effect of the RAE concentrated most of the research funding in the top 10. Formerly, the polytechnics received their own funding from local authorities, but along with the other universities, were funded by the HEFCE once all had been awarded university status. So, what was the real reason for re-branding the polytechnics as universities? Was it all aimed in the service of inclusiveness and greater opportunities for the nation’s youth? Not entirely. The collapse of the “old” manufacturing industry in 80s, then recession, meant that record numbers of unemployed 18–24 year olds were projected, and a huge embarrassment for a government that wants to be re-elected. In parallel, due to the decline in British industry, the polytechnics effectively lost their original role. Through the expediency of renaming the polytechnics as universities, and expanding the student population by a factor of four, vast numbers of young people were kept from the unemployment figures, being in education instead. The expansion was however not funded accordingly, and spending per student fell by 40%.

The quality of professors, in the enlarged corpus of universities, is hardly uniform, since in some (mostly new) universities, there are many “professors” with practically no published work. In some subjects, e.g. “pharmacy practice”, awarding a “professorship” is the only way candidates can be paid sufficiently to attract them from the private sector, but irrespective of their academic quality. The latter situation now applies in both the old and newer universities. With such large numbers of students to teach, the character of the job of an academic has changed immeasurably, and there are many staff now employed on teaching-only contracts. All universities have also become much more bureaucratic than they were, in part stemming from the local-authority roots of the polytechnics. It is of concern, that 36% of those graduating since 2005 were employed in sales and customer service roles in 2011, including sales assistants, cleaners, waiters, shelf-stackers, bar-staff, hotel porters and call centre staff, while 14% graduating since 2005 were unemployed in 2011. So, of those graduates who are employed, 42% are in low-skilled jobs. One in three applications for this year’s graduate vacancies are from students who had  graduated last year, or before, and while there are 10 million graduates in the U.K., there are only 9 million “graduate level” jobs. The question arises then, is it really worthwhile to incur a debt of £30,000 to end up working in a job that a school-leaver could have done? It is likely that the increase in fees from £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012, raising that debt to perhaps £50,000, will prove to be a critical element in providing an answer. Certainly, 18 year olds that I have spoken to, are not taking going to “uni” as a right of passage, but considering other options, including apprenticeships. The recent indicators are consistent with a progressive drop in the number of applications, and a declining number of applicants actually taking up university places when offered to them.

A major fault is that the system was expanded overly and too rapidly, and with scant regard to the subjects being studied. The introduction of a “bums on seats” funding policy forced universities to accept the vast additional numbers of students, but the system is now producing more graduates than there are graduate-level jobs. The polytechnics adopted the trappings of universities, but with neither the traditions nor the standards, and tragically, in so doing, good polys lost their strong vocational role in education and society and became bad universities. As noted, the bottom half of the league table of universities are all ex-polys. The quality of the system has been eroded further by a lack of proper standards being implemented over academic promotions: professorships and readerships. The universities have also been over-bureaucratised, with support staff becoming managers over the academic staff, and hence a significant shift in the power base has occurred. By way of remedial action, Professors and Readers should re-apply for their titles against proper national standards for which an independent body is necessary to validate the quality of such candidates, who should be demoted or removed, if found wanting - e.g. to be a science professor, you should be of the quality to be awarded a D.Sc. The system overall needs restructuring, with the former polytechnics in part looking to their roots, as good local colleges, providing more work-related and practical training. Professor Michael Brown, a former Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University, stated that the current system was “not fit for purpose”, in regard to preparing graduates for the work-place, and introduced a “World of Work” “WOW” certificate. WOW runs in parallel with the student’s degree programme, and provides training in teamwork, negotiating skills, and a whole host of potentially very useful abilities. It is well regarded by the CBI and by potential employers. Professor Edith Sim, the Dean of Science at Kingston University, has stressed the importance for all universities in improving their relationships with business, but particularly those such as Kingston. Indeed, it is universities like Kingston, ex-polytechnics and mainly teaching-led, who are likely to suffer most under the government austerity cuts, removing 80% of their teaching funding, in comparison with 40% being cut from university research budgets overall.

For a while, Reading College was part of Thames Valley University, following a merger between the two institutions, but TVU has since been disbanded, and RC has gone back to its former name. RC runs apprenticeships with local businesses; catering and hospitality; travel and tourism; motor vehicles; hair and beauty; plumbing, gas and heating; bricklaying; electrical installation and design; barbering; horticulture. It is surely not necessary that every subject be taught in a university, or that it should necessarily be a degree, e.g. catering, tourism, golf-course management, and hotel management. Some degrees fare worse than others, especially in such a tough market, e.g. media and communications, for which employment is down 40% on last year. Not all courses described as apprenticeships are the same, and Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has emphasised the necessity of raising the bar on all such schemes to ensure a common and high standard, perhaps on a par with Germany and Switzerland, nations where technical training is taken very seriously.

In respect of how our future education system and universities will be, the unseen game changer is Peak Oil, which the Canadian economist, Jeff Rubin, has described as “running out of the oil we can afford to burn” The cost of fuel will continue to rise, meaning the “kiss of death” to the global economy. The U.S. now makes little of its own steel, and instead, ore is mined in South America and brought to China, where it is turned into steel, and the steel is then transported to the U.S. Cheap labour and cheap fuel make this strategy possible, but as fuel costs rise, it will become cheaper to do the mining and processing in the U.S., thus rebuilding the U.S. steel industry, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. Many industries could be home-grown and we will need many practically trained people, meaning a requirement for fewer universities in their present form, but more colleges. Hence universities must adapt, and are probably entering another transitional phase, no less dramatic than that which began in 1992.

Magazine Interview of Professor Chris Rhodes about Deep-water Drilling for Oil.

http://www.trelleborg.com/upload/TTime/2-2012/EN01-24_T-Time%202%202012.pdf pages 19-21.