Radiation
Student material
Introduction
In this module, you are invited to reflect on existing fears and falsify or confirm myths concerning different forms of radiation. Depart from an introductory video where some radiation-related fears and myths are brought up and discuss them in groups. Group discussion will lead to selecting a myth-busting activity where you will look for evidence to falsify or confirm a chosen myth. This activity could be conducted experimentally or using secondary evidence, such as information from scientific literature and the internet. Through this activity, you will learn to assess the reliability of information sources (science databases, popular science, and other media). You have first to pose a testable hypothesis (see Figure 1).
After finding evidence and making conclusions, you will prepare a presentation of your results to your classmates (or other audiences) in a relevant and convincing manner (for example, in the form of video posts or PowerPoint presentations). The module is finished with a role-play about radiation issues related to Nuclear Power where you can take positions and suggest solutions using scientific knowledge and personal values attributed to different roles.
Activity 1: Presentation of the video introduction
Please watch the introductory video. Put down your initial thoughts and feelings about the issues presented.
Activity 2: Group discussion
After watching the video, you are invited to discuss the topic in small groups (4-6 members).
- Please, express your initial thoughts and feelings about the issues presented in the video to your peers.
- As a group, you are invited to choose one of the fears, myths, or issues for further busting (falsifying) or confirming based on information that can be found from different sources: the internet, textbooks, etc.
Alternatively, you can broaden your perspective on radiation-related myths and look at following other myths that interest you and your group members.
- Myth 1: Sunbathing is good for health, especially during winter.
- Myth 2: Microwave ovens send intense radiation, and it is dangerous to be near the oven when it works.
- Myth 3: It is bad to sleep near a smartphone and be exposed to its radiation for a long time.
- Myth 4: Radiation emitted by 5G mobile communication masts is more dangerous for humans than that used in the previous generation networks: 2G, 3G and 4G.
- Myth 5: Indoor tanning in a solarium is safer than sunbathing outdoors
- Myth 6: Radiation from a dental X-ray causes severe headaches.
- Myth 7: We must avoid irradiated food because it is radioactive and dangerous.
- Myth 8: Radon is good for health in small doses.
- Myth 9: UV radiation can be blocked only by special UV-block-designed material (used for umbrellas or swimwear).
- Myth 10: After taking medical radiation treatment, a person becomes radioactive.
Activity 3: Mythbusting
You are now invited to narrow down the myth/issue into a testable hypothesis - a statement that can be tested or a question that can be answered through your research. Think about how a hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it as a result of your study.
Plan your further activities following the cycle as given in Figure 1. You should think about whether your myth can be tested experimentally, confirmed/falsified using modern technology, for example, mobile phone Apps as measuring devices, computer models and simulations, or using secondary evidence (e.g. already conducted experiments that have been published or available in the form of YouTbe videos). Based on that, you should choose Activity 3a or 3b for further study. You can use more than one of these methods, applying the so-called triangulation principle – increasing the validity of your findings through the convergence of information from different sources.
Activity 3a: Mythbusting based on experiment
In this activity, you are expected to do the following:
- Develop a testable hypothesis / research question.
- Plan your simple experiment that will confirm or falsify your hypothesis / answer your research question.
- Present collected data in tables, graphs, or similar.
- Use your findings to draw a conclusion.
- Estimate the plausibility of the chosen myth.
- And finally…
Make a video post, presentation or similar of your main findings to inform the public (this step is related to activity 4).
Variable
Value
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Look for further confirmation of the conclusions reached by using reliable secondary sources. For this you have to use the following tools.
Activity 4: Transforming evidence to a suitable format
Possible formats:
- Video post about the course of the experiment and its results video tutorial
- Video of your slideshow video tutorial
- Slide show.
- Poster using, for example, the visual facilitation technique video tutorial
The following criteria will help you to develop your presentation:
Criteria
Product
- The chosen format is suitable for a given audience (e.g. peers).
- Science content is correct (following up-to-date scientific understanding).
- The posed hypothesis/research question found evidence and made conclusions are mutually consistent.
- Demonstrated evidence is gained from reliable sources which are referred.
- The message is clear / understandable.
- Presentation remains within the given time frame (x-y minutes).
- The visual language is convincing.
- Group can respond to the questions raised by the audience.
Process
- The responsibilities related to producing visual, textual, and sound elements, plus acting, and leadership are fairly shared between the group members.
- The video is ready by _________________ (appointed deadline).
Activity 5: Group presentations
In this activity, you are invited to present your video, poster, etc. to the others. Please be ready to answer your classmates and teacher's questions and comments!
Also, during the presentation of the other groups, you are invited to give constructive feedback to your classmates.
After the presentations:
What do you think of the feedback that you got from your peers? Is it helpful, so you can use it and make an even better video next time? Is it fair? Discuss it within your group!
Activity 6: Debate game – role-play
In this activity, you are expected to:
- Get familiar with the problems posed in role-playing and see them from different perspectives.
- Form or clarify your own opinion.
- Work towards a shared group vision.
- Present and defend your arguments.
- Vote on policy positions.
The role-play could be formed as a television debate programme involving eight roles you would represent in teams of 3-4 players. Each team nominates one member as spokesperson, while others act as advisors. Two students in the class will be television debate moderators (programme presenters). Moderators will need time management during the debate and present summary remarks at the end of the role-play. They may invite participants to vote on policy positions.
Theme: Nuclear energy
The specific aim of working with this theme is to enable debate and argumentation to develop your critical thinking regarding nuclear energy. The debate is related to the myth that “Nuclear energy is not safe.” This theme has two positions: in favour and against nuclear power. Thus, the class is divided into two groups according to their attributed roles.
Position 1: In favour
The state must recognise that nuclear energy is safe and offers a "golden opportunity" to create a cleaner and more equitable world. The state must invest in creating a safe nuclear waste cemetery (final depository).
Position 2: Against
The state must close all nuclear reactors in the country by 2030. A safe nuclear station and a safe waste cemetery are an illusion.
Phase I (≈ 25 minutes)
Each team is given (a selection method could be decided with your teacher) a role card containing a brief profile of the role the team will represent, along with the arguments supporting the perspective to be defended. In addition to the role cards, each team is given the worksheet they must complete during the role-play (see worksheet).
You will need to present informed arguments for your position.
The nuclear energy theme has several info cards related to it.
All players have access to all info cards. Each team chooses those they find especially relevant for their role. They also search for additional information on the Internet, considering the importance of choosing reliable sources, as done previously in Activity 3.
Phase II (≈ 20 minutes)
Group discussion:
In this stage, students share their opinions with others and refine common arguments within their teams. Players use the info cards and other information to support their position.
Phases I and II can continue as homework and preparation for debate (phase III) that will take place in the following teaching occasion. Initial arguments can be prepared in enhanced visual form using prepared short videos and PowerPoint presentations
Phase III (≈ 45 min., time might need to be extended)
Debate or actual role-play is divided into two parts. In the first part, the spokesperson of each team is given three minutes to present their role and initial arguments, which they also listed on the worksheet in phase II (see the first column in the worksheet). This worksheet also included columns for noting down the counter arguments put forward by other teams, as well as refutations of these (see second and third columns of worksheet) that would be used further in the role play. Once each of the eight teams has presented its arguments, there will be a five-minute break, thus allowing refutations to be developed; the counter arguments put forward by other teams, and the refutations of these.
Following the five-minute break, in the second part of the role-play, the various spokespersons debated with one another, attempting to counter each other's arguments in support of their position. During this part of the role play, advisors (other team members) are tasked to support their team spokesperson by proposing refutations of the arguments put forward by the teams representing other roles.
Feel free to express your arguments and "professional" ideas.
During the debate, the TV programme presenters moderate the activity. At the end of the debate, the moderators provide a summing-up, highlighting key themes and opinions that had emerged during the discussion. This stage invites players to take the issues as a group (whole class): in favour or against, or reaching other shared group opinions.
If moderators consider it necessary, they ask participants to vote in favour or against the proposed phasing out of nuclear energy production.
The cards
Here the cards fit to the page layout and take as little space as their content demands – so this is just a preview. If you want to see the cards as uniform size playing cards and print them out, please open the special “card-view” page.
Roles in favour of Position 1
Government politician
As a politician in the current government, you have electoral interests and want to increase the employment rate. Your party supports nuclear energy as a feasible, economical, and sustainable energy solution. You defend the job creation resulting from installing a nuclear power plant or a nuclear cemetery and decreasing energy and waste management dependence on other countries.
You seek arguments in favour of nuclear energy to confront your political adversary.
Manager of a nuclear cemetery
You are in favour of nuclear energy and try to defend your company's economic interests. You try to sell your project to build and manage a nuclear cemetery as a facility linked to a nuclear power plant operation.
You appeal to the safety provided by such cemeteries. It must be supported by evidence justifying that it is necessary to manage the nuclear waste produced in operating plants so that it does not have to be sent to other countries.
Nuclear scientist
You are a person who is researching new methods to reuse uranium in power plants so that the waste is less hazardous for a shorter period after disposal.
You should seek information to make a case for installing more nuclear power plants and/or nuclear burial sites based on scientific evidence of research into these new techniques. You seek arguments in favour of nuclear energy.
Worker from a nuclear plant
As a worker in a nuclear power plant, you are in favour of the operation of this industry. In your town, many people got jobs because of the demand for labour at the nuclear power plant. So you have a very favourable opinion of this type of company.
You have to look for evidence to demonstrate the benefits of the jobs generated by a nuclear power plant or nuclear cemetery in your country or EU.
Roles in favour of Position 2
Green activist
You have a radically negative view of nuclear energy and, of course, do not envisage the possibility of more installations. You are in favour of renewable energies, even if you know that they also have an impact on the environment. You are for the closure of the country's nuclear power plants and graveyards.
You must look for evidence concerning favouring nature and the environment, positioning yourself against nuclear energy, and favouring renewable energies.
Politician from the opposition
As a politician from the opposition, you have electoral interests and must be against your political opponent. Your party supports renewable energies as an alternative to traditional and nuclear energy sources, arguing that it is possible to reduce energy dependence on other countries. However, you consider that it is not feasible to close all nuclear power plants in the short term and also argue that the nuclear waste generated should be treated (which could be an economic opportunity for the country), so you do not entirely disagree with the installation of the cemetery.
Look for arguments against nuclear energy and in favour of renewables to confront your political adversary.
Renewable energy scientist
You are an expert in renewable energies and convinced that it is possible to meet a country's energy demand with alternative energies alone, without the need to use nuclear energy. You are against the installation of nuclear power plants and cemeteries, although you do not advocate the closure of the existing ones, as a transitional energy option towards a more sustainable model.
You will have to look for scientific arguments to convince you that it is possible to supply a country only with renewable energy.
Wind energy entrepreneur
You are against using nuclear energy and want to sell your project to create an off-shore wind park to replace nuclear power plants. You are driven by economic and business interests and argue that renewable energies are totally environmentally friendly.
You must look for economical, labour, and environmental evidence to support the positions against the use of nuclear energy.
Info cards
Challenges
Three major challenges to hinder the nuclear industry from making its full potential contribution towards sustainable development and combating climate change: financing, perception, and regulation. The nuclear sector needs to be part of “green financing classifications.” There has been growing recognition amongst policymakers and the public of the low-carbon attributes and high reliability of nuclear power. The licensing of reactor designs needs to be done across national borders.
A leading national example
In the USA, nearly 20 reactors have been saved from needless premature closure in the last years - closures that would increase greenhouse gas emissions and undermine energy independence and result in lethal air pollution. Extending the life of the current fleet of reactors as long as feasible is also considered vitally important for many local communities whose economy depends on these reactors.
Stop global warming
Meeting the 1.5°C temperature rise target in a cost-effective and socially equitable manner will require the rapid deployment of much more nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is essential for avoiding the emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, ensuring that the transition to a low-carbon future is done equitably, and providing people worldwide with a high-powered and sustainable future.
Decarbonisation
Nuclear power enables rapid decarbonisation on a massive scale, and it has the track record to prove it. Nuclear technologies can generate electricity for large grids and small communities, provide district heating and cooling, supply process heat to industry, produce hydrogen, and so much more. This is the only energy source that can produce low-carbon electricity and heat, and it can be a game changer for the deep decarbonisation of the entire global economy.
Sustainability
More than 1200 GW of nuclear generation must be installed by 2050 to meet the world's sustainable development needs. This means the construction of 30 new reactors annually. This has been done before, but we have not yet reached that level today.
New developments
There is an urgent need to accelerate the development and deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced nuclear technologies. SMRs and advanced nuclear projects will play an essential role in further diversifying the nuclear sector and bringing nuclear to new markets and applications.
Radiation
Radiation is a natural part of our life. We are all exposed to radiation daily, on average receiving 2-3 millisieverts (mSv) per year. Most of this radiation comes from radon gas. The nuclear industry is responsible for a tiny part of radiation exposure to the public. On average, living near a nuclear power plant exposes the local population to 0.00009 mSv/year. To put this into perspective, eating ten bananas or two Brazil nuts results in the same radiation dose as living nearby a nuclear power plant for a year. Humans are also naturally radioactive, and the radiation dose from sleeping next to someone else each night for a year is ten times higher than the exposure from living near a nuclear power plant for the same period.
Mortality caused by air pollution
Fossil fuels currently account for about 80% of the total energy supply, which causes a significant level of emissions in terms of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Over 8,5 million people are dying worldwide prematurely because of air pollution.
Lethal accidents
Hydropower is the deadliest electricity generator, primarily due to collapsing dams and the consequences of flooding. The Banqiao Dam failure in China in 1975 led to at least 26,000 people drowning and as many as 150,000 deaths resulting from the secondary effects of the accident. In comparison, radiation exposure following Chernobyl caused 54 deaths (including 28 firefighters exposed to lethal amounts of radiation during the accident night and 15 fatal cases of thyroid cancer), while no casualties due to radiation are likely to occur from the accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation. (Source)
Radon gas
Radioactive radon gas inhalation is a major cause of lung cancer worldwide and is a consequence of the built environment. Alpha particle ionising radiation from radon-222 (222Rn) and its decay progenies, such as polonium (218Po) and (214Po), damages lung cell DNA to produce genetic mutations that promote cancer. Alpha particles from radon and its progeny are measured in Becquerels (Bq) per cubic meter (m³), equivalent to one particle emission per second per cubic metre of air. 100 Bq/m³ marks an exposure above which an increased relative lifetime risk of lung cancer is statistically significant. There is an additive 16% increase in the relative lifetime risk of lung cancer for every 100 Bq/m³ of long-term radon exposure. (Source)
Nuclear cemetery
The Swedish government approved in January 2022 the development of the final Swedish repository (nuclear cemetery) for radioactive waste from the Swedish nuclear power plants, despite heavy criticisms from independent scientists. The case is being referred to as Sweden’s largest environmental case ever, as the spent nuclear fuel should be stored safely for at least 100,000 years.
Example of France
Nuclear accounts for almost 75% of France's power production. In February 2022, France announced that it would construct six new nuclear power reactors, consider building a further eight and push ahead with the development of small modular reactors. The operation of all existing reactors should also be extended without compromising safety.
New developments
The world's first High-Temperature gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) is connected to the grid in China. HTGRs are used for power generation, heat supply, seawater desalination, etc. China plans to accelerate the massive deployment of HTGR technology while establishing an advanced nuclear industry.
Greenpeace
Greenpeace contends that nuclear energy would cost too much to deliver too little and too late while adding to the risk to global security. Greenpeace points to nuclear power’s high investments, regular cost overruns, long construction periods, massive subsidies, operational risks, radioactive waste production and security issues involving proliferation and terrorism.
Ionising radiation
Ionising radiation can damage living tissue by changing cell structure and damaging DNA. The damage depends on the type of radiation, exposure pathway, energy, and the total amount of radiation absorbed. The effect from minor or even moderate exposure may not be noticeable. Most cellular damage is repaired. However, some cells may not recover as well as others and could become damaged or cancerous. Children are more sensitive to ionising radiation than adults because children are still in the process of growing. More cells are dividing, and a greater opportunity for radiation to disrupt the growth process.
Medical radiation
Medical radiation (x-ray) produces a picture that can help find broken bones, tumours and foreign objects in the body and is also used for Computed Tomography (CT scans), mammograms and fluoroscopy. Medical x-rays, dental x-rays, and mammograms use relatively low amounts of ionising radiation. CT scans and fluoroscopic procedures result in higher radiation doses due to the need for multiple images and/or a longer exposure time. CT scans expose a body to several hundred times more radiation than a conventional x-ray.
Risk perception
A considerable amount of psychological research dedicated to understanding why we often ignore some of the statistically most significant risks (e.g. driving, smoking) whilst fearing some of the smallest (e.g. nuclear power) has concluded that factors such as emotions, mental imagery, and trust, are central to the way we assess risks. Few risks elicit as strong a response as radiation, especially in connection with nuclear power, largely thanks to its invisibility, links with cancer, and media portrayals.
Nuclear power
The nuclear industry claims that nuclear power, as a low-carbon source, needs to be part of the energy mix and solution. Nuclear energy is crucial to meeting the world’s ever-increasing demand for energy, thanks to its ability to supply affordable, reliable, and sustainable electricity and heat. Despite the many benefits of nuclear energy, its deployment is hindered in some parts of the world due to long-standing misconceptions about its risks. Even with its safety record – unmatched by any other energy source – the perception of nuclear power as uniquely dangerous endures. People need to be educated about the risks and benefits of nuclear energy.
Radiation phobia
By looking at radiation risks in isolation, we have created something akin to a “radiation phobia” that both directly and indirectly harms people worldwide. For instance, it is well established that the vast majority of Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi health impacts were not radiological but rather psychosocial. There has been an observable and dramatic increase in depression, PTSD, substance abuse, and suicides following these events, which can be significantly attributed to the dissonance between the actual and perceived risks of radiation and the stigmatisation they caused.
Effects of fossil fuels
The historical use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, causing unprecedented changes in the liveability of the Earth. By 2025, half of the world’s population will live in water-stressed areas, as extreme heat and droughts exacerbate water resources. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause an additional 250,000 deaths yearly from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. Yet, despite the enormous risks associated with climate change, our addiction to coal, oil, and fossil gas remains, with fossil fuels providing 84% of global primary energy in 2019. Household and ambient air pollution, causing 8.7 million deaths yearly due to the continued use of fossil fuels. Currently, 770 million people worldwide do not have access to electricity, with over 75% of that population living in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Radiation sources
The human population is continuously exposed to ionising radiation from several natural sources that can be classified into two broad categories: high energy cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere and releasing secondary radiation (cosmic contribution); and radioactive nuclides generated during the formation of the Earth and still present in the Earth’s crust (terrestrial contribution). The terrestrial contribution is mainly composed of the radionuclides of the uranium and thorium decay chains and radioactive potassium. In most circumstances, radon, a noble gas produced in the radioactive decay of uranium, is the most crucial contributor to radiation exposure.
After Chernobyl
The studies of the effects of the Chernobyl accident have shown that the initial fears of radiation effects were highly exaggerated. In addition to 38 deaths of emergency workers in the early stage of the accident, there have been 16 deaths of people due to thyroid cancer. Still, otherwise, there has been no increase in solid cancers, leukaemia or genital malformations, and no genetic effects have been detected. The decisions to evacuate people and include several millions of inhabitants in the list of “Chernobyl victims” were unjustified and would not be taken in the light of present knowledge. (Source)
Renewables
The wind is a clean, renewable energy source and is one of the most cost-effective sources of electricity. It is entirely renewable and will never run out. However, wind turbines can be noisy and unappealing aesthetically and can sometimes adversely impact the physical environment around them. Like solar power, wind power is also intermittent, meaning that turbines are reliant on weather and therefore aren’t capable of generating electricity 24/7. Wind farms or individual turbines can be expensive to install. However, once up and running, operating costs are relatively low; their fuel (wind) is free, and the turbines don’t require too much maintenance throughout their lifetime.
Wind turbines
One of the most significant downsides of wind energy is noise and visual pollution. Wind turbines can be noisy when operating due to both the mechanical operation and the wind vortex created when the blades are rotating. Additionally, because wind turbines need to be built up high enough to capture a good amount of wind, the turbines can often interrupt otherwise scenic landscapes, such as mountain ranges, lakes, oceans, and more. A wind turbine's blades are huge and rotate at very high speeds. Unfortunately, their blades can harm and kill species that fly into them, like birds and bats. The construction of wind farms can also disrupt local species' natural habitats if not conducted sustainably. However, these problems can be solved to some extent with technological advancements and properly-siting wind farms. In many cases, turbines and generation sites may be located quite far from the population centres where electricity is needed. Therefore, transmission lines are an additional infrastructure that must be built.
