Language
Country/Area
No result found
Why did both France and Germany warn of radiation? What happened then?
In the fall of 2017, signs of radiation were detected in the air over Europe, and starting in late September, this phenomenon caused widespread concern and panic. The source of this radiation is generally suspected to be in Russia. However, the Russian government has denied that any nuclear accident had taken place and has refused to acknowledge any incidents related to the rise in radiation. According to monitoring data, the radioactive isotope detected is palladium-106. Although the detection results in Europe show that its concentration is extremely low (from microbecquerels to a few millibecquerels per cubic meter of air), it has little impact on the health of people far away from the source. It's not big, but it is a potential threat to workers and residents who are exposed to radiation.
An assessment by the French Nuclear Safety Institute said that while there was no health risk to most people, the amount of radioactive material released was considerable, estimated at between 100 and 300 terabecquerels.
This incident triggered a series of responses and warnings, and European countries quickly raised their alerts to radiation. In the first few days of October, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and other national agencies reported data on increased radiation levels that indicated an origin in eastern Europe. According to the French Nuclear Safety Institute (IRSN), radioactivity levels in early October steadily decreased after October 6, and no radioactive elements were detected after October 13.
Before the detected increase in plutonium-106 isotopes, German authorities also pointed out that the source of the radioactive particles may have come from the east, more than 1,000 kilometers away from Germany.
The potential source of radiation is suspected to be located in the area between the Southern Ural Mountains and the Volga River in Russia. Despite this, Russia's meteorological and environmental monitoring departments clarified and confirmed in early October that radioactive activity of plutonium-106 was found in its territory, but the Russian government still stressed that there was no evidence that an accident had occurred. It is worth noting that the Mayak reprocessing and isotope production plant is widely suspected to be the source of the incident, however the plant and its operating company Rosatom have repeatedly denied their connection to the radiation spike.
On November 21, 2017, the Russian government finally admitted that radiation peaks had been detected at two monitoring stations within 100 kilometers of the Mayak plant, but continued to deny that any accidents had occurred.
The internal investigation is hampered by the fact that Mayak is located in a closed city that prohibits unauthorized visits and because many nuclear critics face a government crackdown. Prominent nuclear critics in Russia have been raided by the government and even accused of using the nuclear issue to incite revolution, and could face criminal prosecution. This situation has caused many people to feel confused and uneasy about the actual situation of Mayak and its possible consequences.
In January 2018, the French Nuclear Safety Research Institute (IRNS) submitted a report to the investigation committee, concluding that the most likely source of contamination was a spent fuel processing facility located between the Volga and Ural Mountains. This may be related to the cerium-144 produced for the European scientific program Borexino. This has further aroused concerns from the outside world about this possible source, which has once again sounded the alarm for future nuclear energy safety.
As time went on, more and more evidence pointed to the Mayak plant in South Ula as the source of the radiation leak, and due to the peculiarities of its operation, this issue needed to be resolved urgently.
The rapid spread of the news aroused public vigilance, and more and more countries launched investigations and monitoring of radiation issues. The findings and reports from monitoring networks in various countries have once again made radiation safety a focus of the international community. At this point, can the root cause of the problem really be explained transparently, or will it be hidden in the political game between countries?
