Scientists are paying special attention to the study of the Northern Hemisphere environment. Moreover, scientific environmental studies of the Arctic are the most important for a number of reasons. They are global warming, the unique Arctic ecosystem, and the significantly increased human activity in this region. For obvious reasons, scientists pay special attention to technogenic and natural radionuclides in the Arctic.
There are many sources of radionuclides in the Scandinavian and Kola Peninsulas. They could potentially contribute to the contamination of this area in the future.
Scientists have found that radionuclides concentrate in fish tissues and are transferred through food chains, exposing organisms to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Some of the most important technogenic radioactive contaminants for hydrobionts are the long-lived radionuclides Cs-137 and Sc-90. Natural radionuclides, mainly K-40, can also accumulate in fish.
Russian scientists are actively studying the accumulation of radionuclides in fish living in the rivers of the northwestern sector of the Russian Arctic. The results of their research are not encouraging. It turns out that in the rivers closer to the Russian border with Finland and Norway, fish are contaminated with technogenic radionuclides Cs-137 and Sc-90.
One would assume that Russia, which actively uses its nuclear fleet in the Arctic, has nuclear power plants in the region, and is actively engaged in economic activities in the North, is guilty of contaminating the hydrobionts there. But for example, in fish living in the Pechora River, scientists found the radionuclides Cs-137 and Sc-90 in tiny amounts, while in rivers to the west their concentration is quite high. Why is this discovery important?
The Pechora River flows into the Barents Sea very close to the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. In 1961, the USSR conducted an atmospheric test of a 50-megaton nuclear bomb there. However, the fish in this river, we can say, is clean. At the same time, fish from rivers far to the west of the Pechora contain a significant amount of technogenic radionuclides.
The reasons for this negative situation are not yet clear. Russian scientists are unable to study hydrobiont samples from rivers in Norway and Finland due to the termination of joint scientific projects. As a result, they only know that fish are more radioactive in Russian rivers that are closer to these countries than to the Novaya Zemlya archipelago.
Without a comprehensive risk assessment, it is impossible to blame anyone personally. Finland, however, has constant problems with its nuclear power plant. NATO activity in the region has multiplied over the past decade. American nuclear submarines even visit Norwegian harbors. Scandinavian countries prefer to spend money on war rather than on environmental programs.
One cannot help but wonder if they are to blame for the fact that perch and pike have become dangerous in this part of the Arctic.
The study by Russian scientists has not only shown how important to calculate environmental risks when conducting economic activities in the Arctic, but also how necessary to study the region together, putting aside all political differences and prejudices. Otherwise, it will be impossible to find the real causes of the negative processes taking place in the region. Meanwhile, now we can only admit the fact that the quality of fish in the rivers of the Russian Arctic is worse near the Finnish and Norwegian borders.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.