Nuclear Defense and its Effect on Reducing Contamination of Farm Animals and Livestock Products

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Yasuoj University

2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Imam Hussein University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

After any nuclear disaster, radioactive materials are released into the environment, polluting the environment, livestock and livestock products. These substances can enter the human body in the natural cycle through the food chain, a process which must be avoided. To this end, in this study, while examining the release of nuclear materials and the contamination of farm animals and livestock products after nuclear accidents in the world, especially the Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) disasters, the ways to prevent or eliminate the induced contaminations were also examined. Due to the importance of 3 radionuclides; radio-cesium, radio-iodine and     radio- strontium, their cycles in nature were studied. This is a qualitative study based on retrospective time dimension with an applied purpose. Results of this study demonstrated that after exposure to radioactive substances animals have shown side effects such as immune deficiency, lowered body temperature, heart failure, partial atrophy or complete destruction of the thyroid gland, liver damage and eventually death. In the event of a nuclear disaster, it is essential that effective measures be taken as soon as possible to reduce the transmission of radioactive contamination to the food chain. Radiological monitoring of livestock products, prohibition of the use of contaminated food in livestock and poultry feed, and processing of food prepared from livestock products, are among the defense methods that can be used to reduce the transfer of radioactive materials from livestock products to humans. The results of this study also indicated that, exploration of radionuclide transport pathways to farm animals and their products can lead to the design of countermeasures that have the highest degree of efficacy and can be implemented in the shortest possible time to avoid maximum contamination.

Keywords

Smiley face

References

[1]     IAEA and FAO, “Guidelines for Agricultural Countermeasures Following an Accidental Release of Radionuclides,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1994.##
[2]     S. A. Geraskin, S. V. Fesenko, and R. M. Alexakhin, “Effects of non-human species irradiation after the Chernobyl NPP accident,” Environ. Int., vol. 34(6), pp. 880-897, 2008.##
[3]     L. R. Anspaugh, “Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: Twenty years of experience,” In International Conference: Chernobyl–Looking Back to Go Forward, Towards a United Nations Consensus on the Effects of the Accident and the Future, pp. 6-7, Sep. 2005.##
[4]     B. J. Howard, N. A. Beresford, and G. Voigt, “Recent advances in animal radioecology and mitigation of animal product contamination after accidents,” In: Eurosafe 2002, Berlin, Nov. 2002.##
[5]     R. Y. Olobatoke and M. Mathuthu, “Radionuclide exposure in animals and the public health implications” Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., vol. 39(4), pp. 381-388, 2015.##
[6]     J. R. Boice, “Radiation epidemiology: a perspective on Fukushima,” J. Radiol. Prot., vol. 32(1), p. 33, 2012.##
[7]     E. J. Bromet, “Emotional consequences of nuclear power plant disasters,” Health phys., vol. 106(2), p. 206, 2014.##
[8]     L. T. Dilas, I. Bajkin, T. Icin, J. N. Paro, and B. K. Zavisi, “Iodine and thyroid gland with or without nuclear catastrophe,” Med. Pregl., vol. 65(11-12), pp. 489-95, 2012.##
[9]     K. Hayashi and N. Tomita, “Lessons learned from the great East Japan earthquake impact on child and adolescent health,” Asia Pac. J. Public. Health, vol. 24(4), pp. 681-688, 2012.##
[10]  M. C. Bell, “Radiation effects on livestock: physiological effects, dose response,” Vet. Hum. Toxicol., vol. 27(3), pp. 200-207, 1985.##
[11]  M. Brink, B. Lauritzen, and D. P. Directorate, “Agricultural countermeasures in the Nordic countries after a nuclear accident (No. NKS--51),” Nordisk Kernesikkerheds for skning, 2001.##
[12]  T. M. Nakanishi, “Agricultural implications of the Fukushima nuclear accident,” J. Radiat. Res., vol. 57, pp. 47-52, 2016.##
[13]  National Research Council (US), “Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations and United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” vol. 3095, National Academy Press, 1980.##
[14]  N. Yamaguchi, I. Taniyama, T. Kimura, K. Yoshioka, and M. Saito, “Contamination of agricultural products and soils with radiocesium derived from the accident at TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: monitoring, case studies and countermeasures,” Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr., vol. 62(3), pp. 303-314, 2016.##
[15]  C. Zallinger and K. Tempel, “The physiologic response of domestic animals to ionizing radiation: a review,” Vet Radiol Ultrasound, vol. 39(6), pp. 495-503, 1998.##
[16]  J. A. Morris, “Exposure of animals and their products to radiation, Surveillance, monitoring and control of national and international trade,” International Office of Epizootics, vol. 7, pp. 11-23, 1988.##
[17]  P. Strand, L. Skuterud, and J. Melin, “Reclamation of contaminated urban and rural environments following a severe nuclear accident,” (No. NKS--97-18), Nordisk kernesikkerheds for skning, 1997.##
[18]  S. V. Fesenko, R. M. Alexakhin, M. I. Balonov, I. M. Bogdevitch, B. J. Howard, V. A. Kashparov, N. I. Sanzharova, A.V. Panov, G. Voigt, and Y. M. Zhuchenka, “An extended critical review of twenty years of countermeasures used in agriculture after the Chernobyl accident,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 383(1), pp. 1-24, 2007.##

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 30 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 03 February 2021
  • Publish Date: 22 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics