[All] Energy Futures & Health: Part 1, Building a Clean & Healthy Energy Future

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks

If you missed the form on Energy Futures & Health, here are the notes I took. 
Part 1 covers the afternoon session, Part 2 the evening session. 

Lulu 

_______________________________________________________________




Energy Futures & Health: Part 1, Building a Clean & Healthy Energy Future

Notes taken on September 12th, 2012.

Introduction by Dr. Neil Arya 


First speaker:  Dr. Alan Abelsohn

Brief Bio: Consultant for Health Canada, World Conference of Family Physicians, Ontario College of Family Physicians, Addressing impacts of Climate Change on Human Health. Epidemiologist: Health Canada.

Air Quality Health Index: AQHI (Toronto Lung Association)
http://www.on.lung.ca/page.aspx?pid=443


Illness costs of smog associated with particulates impacting heart and lungs. More exercise means higher volumes of particulates inhaled and greater risk for: 

Asthma, 

COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 
Ischemia
Cardiac Failure 
Stroke

Long term impacts include: Increased mortality, cancer, pnumonia, more heart plaque, pregnancy effects, asthma, lung function and growth impacts. 

Illness Costs of Smog costs 8 billion annually, 3.6 billion in Ontario.

AQHI toxins include: 
NO2 aka nitrogen dioxide ( measured in ppb) 
O3 aka ozone (measured in ppb)
Particulate Matter (2.5ug/m3) 

Date of interest: view Aug. 17-23 2003 Regional Smog reports from Toronto.


To view local readings visit Air Quality Health Index at Health Canada online at : http://www.ec.gc.ca/cas-aqhi/

Tip: Don't exercise near traffic. 

Great report to look at: NOAA's State of the Climate Report 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

Climate Change is a public health issue!
Direct implications by temperature increases and extreme weather events. 
Indirect impacts by way of air pollution, food and water contamination, increased vector born diseases, food and water security issues and sea level rise. 

Heat and Temperature: 2003 mortality rate in Paris, June 23 to August 19 2003

*NOTE at the lecture no specific details were given but when I later reviewed the date I found this report that cited a 
A 130% increase in the expected mortality was consequently observed during August 2003 in Paris.
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/12/21/34/PDF/cc5092.pdf

Health Canada Communicating Health Risks of Extreme Heat Events Toolkit: 

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/climat/heat-chaleur/index-eng.php


Vector Risks; Lyme Disease in Canada
In developing nations: Malaria, diarrhea, Malnutrition, Water contamination, population displacement
In the Arctic: extreme impacts

Those who don't produce Green House Gas face the worst effects
China, Africa, South America face moral dilemma.

Health Costs and benefits of Low Carbon Policy
Vegeterian diet is healthier
Less energy in transportation makes for more active living
Less electricity reduces pollution.

Q & A info:
We have reduced NO2 in Ontario. 
Trans-boundrary air pollution is improving
Cars are getting better but more cars negates the benefit
Phasing out coal is working.
When it comes to air quality issues boys tend to have more asthma more than girls.
Elderly most at risk due to diabetes, heart disease.
_____________________________________________________________________

Second speaker: Dr. Cathy Vakil, Queens University (speaking independently) about Radioactivity, Health and the Nuclear Industry

In Isotopes: neutrons numbers differ and are unstable. It projects energy which we call radiation.

Showed chart of Radioactive Decay with the top being most active: Uranium 239 to the end point of Lead 206 which is stable. Link to the same chart here: 
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=uranium+238+to+lead&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1182&bih=619&tbm=isch&tbnid=mEntclxk7CjEdM:&imgrefurl=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/elements/imagine/09.html&docid=tNqj26c6UDrhAM&imgurl=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/teachers/posters/elements/booklet/radioactivedecay_bw_big.jpg&w=700&h=1000&ei=y8pYUJuMF6SA0AHes4DQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=823&vpy=230&dur=1324&hovh=268&hovw=188&tx=98&ty=155&sig=102696435215927884836&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=93&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:110


We are already seeing examples of radioactive terrorism being used to kill people ie: Arafat and Alexander Litvinenko killed by polonium 210. 

Uranium 238 currently being refined in Port Hope.  Uranium 235 enriched in the US (Not Canada). 
Depleted Uranium produced in Canada is U-238

Radion from U-238 is a carcinogen known to cause lung cancer. It contaminates air, soil, water and aquifer systems.

Neutrons released from U-235 causes atoms to split which makes heat used to boil water to turn turbines which creates electricity. It's basically a controlled bomb effect.


Alpha fuel rod can be held in the hands. This rod goes into the processing and when gamma is spent it creates a dangerous radioactive and toxic waste.  There are 200 new products for this spent waste. 
Plutonium reactor fuels bombs. It must be stored in water 10 years to cool the waste materials, after that it is placed in dry storage. There are 40,000 tonnes of it in Canada. 


Gamma rays penetrates. 
Both Alpha and Beta particles can be ingested or inhaled. 
Polonium/ U238 are both radon alpha emitters. 
Strontium 90, Cesium 137, Iodine 131 are beta emitters.


Acute Radiation sickness can cause DNA damages, birth defects, immune dysfunction, diabetes, heart disease and auto immune issues. Radiation builds up in the blood, the gonads, embryonic tissues, GI tract. Particularly harmful to children who have fast growing tissues. 

2.4 mSv background radiation in our environment
1.0 mSv acceptable public level/year. 

Nuclear power plant workers: 100mSv/5 year or max 50/mSv per year is accepted in Canada currently. Currently there are 3.2 excess deaths in nuclear power plant workers.

Linear contaminates: the more exposure the more harm. There are no safe limits. 
Women are more vulnerable to adverse impacts of radiation than men.
Current standards are based on diffused impacts rather than localized elevations
There are spikes with exposure that can incite but the safety levels only observe exposure based on per year values. 

Hiroshima: estimated deaths 120,000. First 5 years of scientific data is missing. Today's acceptable levels are based on these reports with the absence of that 5 year window on impacts to human health.

Tooth fairy project: gathered the teeth of children. Levels of strontium 90 pools in bones as was found in the teeth directly related to elevated levels of leukaemia and as a result, above ground nuclear testing was stopped. 

More modern data suggest higher cancer rates around nuclear power plants two examples:
1. The COMARE 14th report regarding incidents of childhood leukaemia around nuclear Power plants in Great Britain. 
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/14thReportPressRelease.htm
2.  Kikk study found higher leukaemia rates in children in proximity to nuclear power plants with ages 5 and under being most affected. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/

This data was replicated. 

In Canada we hardly studied the impacts of nuclear power. We have the Durnham Study but it was focused on environmental impacts regarding the Darlington Nuclear power plant rather than impacts on public health. 
www.durham.ca/departments/health/.../radiationHealthReport2007.pdf

Plutonium and Tritium are produced in Canada. 

When the Tsunami hit Japan, it sent radiation across the ocean. There was a spike in radiation detected in Breast Milk along the entire west coast but in Canada there was clearly a lack of study on the matter. It appears to be a case of no information, no problem. 

Since the Tsunami in Japan, residents there have experienced 50% more leukaemia, 52% increase in butterfly deformities, birth defects, down syndrome and multi symptom illnesses. When it comes to Reactor 4, it's not if but when it falls, we will see more issues.  The fallout from this incident spread over a huge area. 

In regards to Chernobyl, the IAEA Stated there were 4000 deaths. 
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs.shtml
A study from Greenpeace puts the numbers at 200,000 deaths
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4917526.stm

A Russian study put the numbers to almost 1 million deaths
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/


Q&A info:
At the Tar Sands the uranium in the soil does pose a radioactive risk
Nuclear power plants historically run over budget
In regards to a proposed nuclear storage repository by Lake Huron, if it sinks it could contaminate the Great Lakes. Nobody knows if these systems are safe. We cannot predict impacts when the facility is intended to store materials for thousands of years. 
"We are using electricity and we are not even thinking of the impacts to future generations." 
__________________________________________________________________

Tim Weis: Coal in Canada & Future outlook

Nanticoke is the largest coal burning plant in North America. In Canada in 2009, these were the energy sources;

16% coal
61% hydro electric
16% nuclear
3% natural gas
2% wind, tidal, biomass
2% oil

Canada was the 6th largest consumer of coal in the world equal to Germany, (German population 3 times larger)

Environment Canada's Green House Gas report 2009
25% GHG emissions from fossil fuels
24% Transportation
14% Electricity
11% buildings
(couldn't get the others down in time)

Sundance and Genesee are the two plants in Alberta highest in emissions. The GHG is set to triple in that area.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have the largest Green House Gas emissions per capita due in part to electricity generated by coal even though it only has approximately 15% of Canada's population. They contribute 410 megatonnes of emissions annually.

Quebec is closing it's nuclear reactors. They have hydro and no coal. 
Ontario is phasing out coal by 2014.
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are still the highest polluters regarding coal. They make up 60% of our emissions with 3/4 of that from coal power. 

SOz and NOx in Alberta is well above the maximum provincial levels. 

Coal costs 3.2 cents of damage/kw hour which basically doubles the current market costs of coal. This does not count climate change impacts. If it did, you would have to add another 3.10 cents to 10 cents extra on top of the other costs. That is the high cost of this "cheap energy".

In Canada's east coast, most emissions are released over the water but but in Alberta, much of it blows into Manitoba or south to the US. 

Federal government coal regulation as proposed by industry in 2002 would have established a review of 40 year old plants to either rebuild or close. Coal would have been phased out in exchange for natural gas power. 

Environment Canada's proposal included review of plants 45 years old, limiting discharges to 375 tonnes/gwh but it would secure a do nothing approach until 2015. It would reduce emissions from 60 mega tonnes to 40 mega Tonnes.

Coal is the low hanging fruit! Why not go for what the industry itself recommended to reduce emissions? 

The final plan as recommended by Environment Canada allows plants to run for 50 years, emitting 420 tonnes/GWH, no carbon offsets allowed (that part is good) but the start date won't take effect until 2019. 

Under the original proposal, we could have reduced emissions to 10,000 tonnes/GWH by 2035. The governments final plan was 1/3rd weaker that the industry proposed plan. As weakened we will see more deaths, more cases of asthma and illness costs of smog etc. This created a 10 year delay in implementing a solution. It becomes a cost concern and it harms our international reputation. It is designed to be implemented one year away from the 2020 Kyoto targets.  

(Pembina report re: Canada's draft coal regulations http://www.pembina.org/blog/588)

A federal report outlining the costs of infrastructure is all relative to the costs of running natural gas plants but the report fails to give any monetary value to the systems mentioned. For example, nuclear power is estimated to be twice the cost of natural gas.  The grid features circles showing cost estimates without any true monetary values. 


As Ontario closed coal plants, airborne mercury levels dropped dramatically but we still can see toxins coming in from US coal plants to the south. The trend shows we are unlikely to see new coal plants being established in the future. 
Clean coal technologies are far to costly and the cost of shale gas is far cheaper. Carbon capture has many long term liability risks associated so it's most likely only going to be used in projects such as the Albert Tar sands and not a system adopted in other sectors. It takes 1/3rd the power of a power plant to replace the emissions underground. The system would cost approximately 1.2 billion to set up. 

As for shale gas, there are earthquake concerns. The more wells they drill the higher the risks. There is a risk from the unidentified injected chemicals used to extract the gas and risks to groundwater supplies as a result. Quebec has already initiated a moratorium on fracking in their province.
_______________________________________________________ 

Dr. Ray Copes  (representing his own views)  Public Health Ontario, National Collaborating Centre Environmental Health. 

Speaking on Wild Power, Renewables and Public Health

Public Health is essentially working at arm's length but still funded by the Province. Indirect agency established in 2008 to support Health systems and the Province. They conduct environmental monitoring, promote prevention strategies, address issues of occupational health, infection control networks. Does not have statutory powers or make policies but it does provide data and evidence. 

Energy & Health
Poor health is related to dirtiest fuels in poor countries where it is used for cooking and heat. Those most impacted include women and children. Every 5 in 10,000 deaths comes as a result of indoor smoke. Electrical systems save lives. 
Electrical systems are a key component to producing goods and services. 
Better living standards increased GDP 21.5 times between 1840 and 1990. 
GDP & Global energy intensity is going downwards where it takes less energy to produce the same goods. 

Environmental Health from Global to Local Frumkin 2010 
http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Health-Global-Local-Public/dp/0787973831
states better energy = less mortality in children but more consumption per capita (which requires more energy!)

There is an upside and a downside.

Electricty generation in europe death cases twh

In order, the scale of emissions from highest polluter to lowest resulting in serious illnesses, death, minor illnesses: 
Coal, gas, biomass, Oil, Nuclear

Source: Energy and Health 2 Electricity generation and Health
www.bigthunderwindpower.ca/.../Electricity_generation_and_health...


The study did not include impacts of solar or wind power, perhaps because it only results in a tiny fraction of risk. There is a lack of data on it in this report. 

With climate change there is a clear case to go to renewables to reduce carbon footprint, air pollution and accident risks. These sources include: Direct Solar, Hydro, Wind, Wave energy, Biofuel, Surface Heat, Tidal, Geothermal. 

The main drawbacks to renewables: Low energy density, intermittent supply, constraints on location, environmental or aesthetic effects. 

Wind in Canada currently generates 5511MW or 2% of our total energy supply. There is growing capacity in Canada. The largest area using wind is in Texas where 421 wind turbines generate 735 MW over 47,000 acres. The land is still productive for other uses. In comparison we have the Bruce Nuclear power plant generating 6232 MW of energy using 2300 acres. 

In regards to wind power, they are not more riskier than existing power supplies. They are an old technology and many communities have experience using them. They've been implemented globally. They generally have less regulatory standards than other energy sources simply because they have less overall risks. 


The benefits of wind include: no combustion, renewable energy supply, economic benefit for rural land owners and residents, development opportunities, well proven technologies.

The complaints of wind by the public are focused on the following issues: public believes they pay more for wind power, they feel there is a lack of public input on placement, some believe it has little local benefit, they feel it ruins the view of landscapes, they say it's noisy, some believes it makes them sick and others are concerned about a loss in property value. 

The best available data establishes: Setbacks, shut down in bad weather and we can address most of the public concerns by way of placement. 

According to medical data to date,  wind turbine syndrome is "implausible".
If there are any sound concerns, placement of the unit can remedy. 

Recommended reading: 
Jaccard M. Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The unusual suspect in the quest for clean and enduring energy 
http://www.amazon.ca/Sustainable-Fossil-Fuels-Unusual-Enduring/dp/0521679796


Q&A information: 
There are concerns for heavy water, impacts of air quality to reserves, nuclear impacts. 
Accidents can change everything (in terms of nuclear ie: Fukushima)

The Baxter study conducted by Western University found those who were without wind power were most against it and those who had wind power had no problem with it. 
Contaminated land is a far bigger issue for people than wind power. 

General Q and A to all panellists:

In regards to climate change, there are many energy infrastructure concerns. 
Permafrost is melting and buildings are shifting. 
Hydro and wind is changing thresholds
Sea Level rise poses risks
Dyke limitations are
 an issue
Tar Sands is running out of water
Storm surges pose risks
They had to dredge the Thames to prepare for heavier rains and floods
Pine and Ash Borer is having adverse impacts on trees
Water issues make cooling nuclear power plants difficult. They had to close plants in the US and in Paris due to water that was too warm. 

Energy consumption = health, and Income and employment = health,  retrofits to help reduce consumption and costs can help to connect us to better solutions. 

Ontario is reducing 10% of it's emissions in 6 years and Germany which is an industrial nation is doing well but uses only 1/3 rd of our energy to support a much larger population. 

With Ontario moving towards wind and better conservation we probably won't need new nuclear plants. (Pembina)

Armory Lovins states there is no reason for more power plants if we simply invested in conservation. We get 20-30% reduction with our systems on average which is a better return on investments. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html


China and Germany conserve because when you save on carbon, you make more money. 

Currently biomass is focused on food production but we could take initiatives to include wood wastes into the system. 

We need to engage more health partners and professionals in dialogue because it helps. The Ontario Medical Association's Illness Cost of Smog Report helped. 

Currently nuclear risks fall under the radar. Ontario appears very pro-nuclear in spite of the fact cost issues have historically risen. It is not a healthy source of energy. It's unconscionable and diabolical. 

Efficiency towards a non-carbon based future: Let's make our choice. 

End of Part 1. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120919/6fbe1759/attachment.html>