Search Results

This chapter discusses methods to determine dissolved and sediment-sorbed radionuclides in rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, oceans, and lakes under accidental and routine radionuclide releases. It provides simple but robust analytical solution models to determine site-specific radionuclide concentrations with minimum site-specific data. It has step-by-step instructions with all required information supplied by accompanying tables and figures. The chapter contains many sample calculations. It also discusses a theory of radionuclide transport and fate mechanisms in surface water. The Chernobyl nuclear accident is used to illustrate important mechanisms, radionuclide migration and accumulation, transport and fate modeling, aquatic impacts, and human health effects through aquatic pathways. Thus, this chapter connects the theory to its applications and to the actual Chernobyl nuclear accident assessment.

The past couple of decades have been a confusing, frustrating period for engineers. With their creations making the world an ever richer, healthier, more comfortable place, it should have been a time of triumph and congratulation for them. Instead, it has been an era of discontent. Even as people have come to rely on technology more and more, they have liked it less. They distrust the machines that are supposedly their servants. Sometimes they fear them. And they worry about the sort of world they are leaving to their children. Engineers, too, have begun to wonder if something is wrong. It is not simply that the public doesn’t love them. They can live with that. But some of the long-term costs of technology have been higher than anyone expected: air and water pollution, hazardous wastes, the threat to the Earth’s ozone layer, the possibility of global warming. And the drumbeat of sudden technological disaster over the past twenty years is enough to give anyone pause: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, the Challenger, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, the downing of a commercial airliner by a missile from the U.S.S. Vincennes. Is it time to rethink our approach to technology? Some engineers believe that it is. In one specialty after another, a few prophets have emerged who argue for doing things in a fundamentally new way. And surprisingly, although these visionaries have focused on problems and concerns unique to their own particular areas of engineering, a single underlying theme appears in their messages again and again: Engineers should pay more attention to the larger world in which their devices will function, and they should consciously take that world into account in their designs. Although this may sound like a simple, even a self-evident, bit of advice, it is actually quite a revolutionary one for engineering. Traditionally, engineers have aimed at perfecting their machines as machines. This can be seen in the traditional measures of machines: how fast they are, how much they can produce, the quality of their output, how easy they are to use, how much they cost, how long they last.

Each day, when you take your morning shower, you face a 1 in 1,000 chance of serious injury or even death from a fall. You might at first think that each time you get into the shower your chance of a fall and serious injury is 1 in 1,000 and therefore there is very little to worry about. That is probably because you remember that someone once taught you the famous coin-flip rule of elementary statistics: because each toss is an independent event, you have a 50% chance of heads each time you flip. But in this case you would be wrong. The actual chance of falling in the shower is additive. This is known in statistics as the “law of large numbers.” If you do something enough times, even a rare event will occur. Hence, if you take 1,000 showers you are almost assured of a serious injury—about once every 3 years for a person who takes a shower every day. Of course, serious falls are less common than that because of a variety of intervening factors. Nevertheless, according to the CDC, mishaps near the bathtub, shower, toilet, and sink caused an estimated 234,094 nonfatal injuries in the United States in 2008 among people at least 15 years old. In 2009, there were 10.8 million traffic accidents and 35,900 deaths due to road fatalities in the United States. The CDC estimates a 1-in-100 lifetime chance of dying in a traffic accident and a 1-in-5 lifetime chance of dying from heart disease. But none of these realities affect our behaviors very much. We don’t take very many (if any) precautions when we shower. We text, eat, talk on the phone, and zone out while driving, paying little attention to the very real risk we pose to ourselves (and others) each time we get in the car. And we keep eating at McDonald’s and smoking cigarettes, completely disregarding the fact that these behaviors could eventually affect our health in extreme and fatal ways. On the other hand, there is zero proven risk of death as a result of the diphtheria- tetanus- pertussis (DTP) vaccine.

Today’s energy sectors hold different potentials for saving on energy, carbon, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Buildings, for instance, represent more than 40% of energy use worldwide and one-third of GHGs (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], n.d.a). Improvements in heating, cooling, and powering of buildings, as well as industrial processes, can deliver substantial and cost-effective savings. In line with this, geothermal energy represents a more unusual form of renewable energy in that it can directly contribute to heating, cooling, and electricity services. Unlike a number of its counterparts, geothermal energy can provide a more stable and renewable form of energy that is largely unaffected by weather. The chapter focuses on geothermal energy adoption in Iceland, “a little country that roars,” according to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christina Figueres (Iceland Monitor, 2014), when discussing leadership in renewable energy use and related action. In developing its renewable energy leadership, Iceland has wrestled, like many countries, with tradeoffs in energy, the environment, and economic development. The chapter highlights the interplay of these interests and explores the innovative engineering and industrial spillovers in Iceland’s geothermal adoption. Iceland is a country of roughly 333,000 people, and is a global leader in renewable energy use (Islandsbanki, 2010; Ministry of the Environment, 2010; Statistics Iceland, 2017). Two-thirds of the country’s primary energy consists of geothermal energy, with roughly nine out of ten Icelandic homes heated by the fuel source and a quarter of the country’s electricity powered by it (Orkustofnun, 2015; Ragnarsson, 2015). The nation leads globally in terms of geothermal heat capacity per capita and serves as a principal source of international training and consulting on geothermal energy, with a diverse industrial cluster that has developed around the technology (Gekon, n.d.; United Nations University Geothermal Training Programme [UN- GTP], n.d). The country’s low carbon development pathway reflects choices and debate about how to manage its natural resources and allow for foreign investment. Iceland began the 20th century as one of the poorest nations in Europe and is now a top-ranked country in the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index (Hannibalsson, 2008; United Nations Development Program [UNDP], 2015).