Europeans Focus on Environment

LONDON—One of the starkest contrasts between the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is in the type of scientific research that each has stimulated. After Three Mile Island, reactor operators and regulators throughout the West reassessed the technology and the policies behind nuclear safety. Research in the wake of Chernobyl has focused instead on the environmental effect of the radionuclides released from the reactor. Within a day after news of the accident, for example, the chairman of the British Central Electricity Generating Board, Lord Marshall, announced that the Chernobyl reactor was of a type unique to the Soviet Union and that there were no technical lessons to be learned from the accident. The same cannot be said, however, about the radioactive rain that fell upon western Europe. The fallout revealed the primitive state of scientific understanding on the subject. There was confusion among the affected countries about the way in which the radionuclides were transported through the atmosphere, to the soil and water and, finally, into the food chain. Experts disagreed on acceptable levels of contamination, and the quality of monitoring facilities varied enormously. Governments across Europe have commissioned research to remedy some of the defects. But the irregular pattern of radioactivity has practically ruled out multinational cooperation. Britain, for example, received on the average very small amounts of radioactivity. But regions that received heavy rains as the Chernobyl cloud passed overhead—the uplands of Wales, the northwest of England, and the west coast of Scotland—received up to 10 times the fallout of the rest of the country. Moreover, the fact that most of the areas contained sheep farms has tilted research toward the impact on those animals. Britain has already spent nearly $2 million on Chernobyl-related research, with support from at least four separate government departments. One surprise has been the relative importance of radiocesium in the fallout compared with the better-known hazards of radioactive iodine. And while iodine has a comparatively short half-life [eight days], cesium's is three decades. The Department of the Environment has four major projects: one to study how much fallout occurred; one to assess the impact of the accident—and especially the cesium—on drinking water; one to examine the seasonal variation of environmental moorland vegetation and its uptake by wild herbivores and the carnivores that feed on them; and one to assess the way in which environmental radioactivity finds its way into human populations. The bulk of the British government's spending on post Chernobyl research is coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A team at Bristol University has been growing sections of hillside taken from Cumbria, in northwest England, under light and heat to assess the long-term effect of cesium—particularly how much is likely to stay immobilized in the soil and how much is likely to be recycled into the spring grass and, eventually, into the new season's lambs. In a related project, the Ministry's own scientists are monitoring a flock of 100 sheep in Cumbria to check their uptake of radioactivity. The European Commission hopes to conduct a number of research projects, but their long-range value is not clear. One, an epidemiological survey of health effects from the accident, faces the formidable obstacle of tracking an estimated 1,000 additional fatal cancers over a period when about 30 million natural cancer deaths can be expected to occur. The Commission has also launched a collaborative effort among French, British, Italian and Greek scientists to improve the computer models that describe the long-distance transport of radionuclides and other pollutants in the atmosphere. Its results, however, may prove to be of greater use in clarifying the European debate over acid rain than in monitoring the effects of nuclear fallout. The Scandinavian countries, which received a major share of the fallout because of the prevailing winds, have been among the most diligent in analyzing the effects of the accident on their environment. But the extent of their efforts varies according to the equipment available. Sweden already had a full monitoring network in place because of its existing nuclear power program. Its spending, as a result, is expected to be minimal, most of it on labor to test levels in the air, ground and food cycle. Norway, with its vast reserves of hydropower and, more recently, oil and gas, has been forced to develop such a network from scratch. As a result, much of the $2.2 million the Norwegians have spent in the past year went for emergency monitoring equipment. The country plans to develop an advanced monitoring system. Its total effort, both for equipment and an extensive environmental research program, is expected to exceed $6 million by 1990. Wilkie is science editor of The Independent in London. Tony Samstag, of the Financial Times in Oslo, also contributed to this report.

Europeans Focus on Environment

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of