Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 20, 2014
Fukushima: Bad and Getting Worse
Fukushima’s radiation disaster is “far from over”
There is broad disagreement over the amounts and effects of radiation exposure due to the triple reactor meltdowns after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and tsunami. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) joined the controversy June 4, with a 27-page “Critical Analysis of the UNSCEAR Report ‘Levels and effects of radiation exposures due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and tsunami.’”
IPPNW is the Nobel Peace Prize winning global federation of doctors working for “a healthier, safer and more peaceful world.” The group has adopted a highly critical view of nuclear power because as it says, “A world without nuclear weapons will only be possible if we also phase out nuclear energy.”
UNSCEAR, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, published its deeply flawed report April 2. Its accompanying press release summed up its findings this way: “No discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases are expected due to exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident.” The word “discernable” is a crucial disclaimer here.
Cancer, and the inexorable increase in cancer cases in Japan and around the world, is mostly caused by toxic pollution, including radiation exposure according to the National Cancer Institute.[1] But distinguishing a particular cancer case as having been caused by Fukushima rather than by other toxins, or combination of them, may be impossible ¾ leading to UNSCEAR’s deceptive summation. As the IPPNW report says, “A cancer does not carry a label of origin…”
UNSCEAR’s use of the phrase “are expected” is also heavily nuanced. The increase in childhood leukemia cases near Germany’s operating nuclear reactors, compared to elsewhere, was not “expected,” but was proved in 1997. The findings, along with Chernobyl’s lingering consequences, led to the country’s federally mandated reactor phase-out. The plummeting of official childhood mortality rates around five US nuclear reactors after they were shut down was also “unexpected,” but shown by Joe Mangano and the Project on Radiation and Human Health.
The International Physicians’ analysis is severely critical of UNSCEAR’s current report which echoes its 2013 Fukushima review and press release that said, “It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”
“No justification for optimistic presumptions”
The IPPNW’s report says flatly, “Publications and current research give no justification for such apparently optimistic presumptions.” UNSCEAR, the physicians complain, “draws mainly on data from the nuclear industry’s publications rather than from independent sources and omits or misinterprets crucial aspects of radiation exposure”, and “does not reveal the true extent of the consequences” of the disaster. As a result, the doctors say the UN report is “over-optimistic and misleading.” The UN’s “systematic underestimations and questionable interpretations,” the physicians warn, “will be used by the nuclear industry to downplay the expected health effects of the catastrophe” and will likely but mistakenly be considered by public authorities as reliable and scientifically sound. Dozens of independent experts report that radiation attributable health effects are highly likely.
Points of agreement: Fukushima is worse than reported and worsening still
Before detailing the multiple inaccuracies in the UNSCEAR report, the doctors list four major points of agreement. First, UNSCEAR improved on the World Health Organization’s health assessment of the disaster’s on-going radioactive contamination. UNSCEAR also professionally “rejects the use of a threshold for radiation effects of 100 mSv [millisieverts], used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the past.” Like most health physicists, both groups agree that there is no radiation dose so small that it can’t cause negative health effects. There are exposures allowed by governments, but none of them are safe.
Second, the UN and the physicians agree that areas of Japan that were not evacuated were seriously contaminated with iodine-132, iodine-131 and tellurium-132, the worst reported instance being Iwaki City which had 52 times the annual absorbed dose to infants’ thyroid than from natural background radiation. UNSCEAR also admitted that “people all over Japan” were affected by radioactive fallout (not just in Fukushima Prefecture) through contact with airborne or ingested radioactive materials. And while the UNSCEAR acknowledged that “contaminated rice, beef, seafood, milk, milk powder, green tea, vegetables, fruits and tap water were found all over mainland Japan”, it neglected “estimating doses for Tokyo … which also received a significant fallout both on March 15 and 21, 2011.”
Third, UNSCEAR agrees that the nuclear industry’s and the government’s estimates of the total radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean are “far too low.” Still, the IPPNW reports shows, UNSCEAR’s use of totally unreliable assumptions results in a grossly understated final estimate. For example, the UN report ignores all radioactive discharges to the ocean after April 30, 2011, even though roughly 300 tons of highly contaminated water has been pouring into the Pacific every day for 3-and-1/2 years, about 346,500 tons in the first 38 months.
Fourth, the Fukushima catastrophe is understood by both groups as an ongoing disaster, not the singular event portrayed by industry and commercial media. UNSCEAR even warns that ongoing radioactive pollution of the Pacific “may warrant further follow-up of exposures in the coming years,” and “further releases could not be excluded in the future,” from forests and fields during rainy and typhoon seasons ¾when winds spread long-lived radioactive particles ¾a and from waste management plans that now include incineration.
As the global doctors say, in their unhappy agreement with UNSCAR, “In the long run, this may lead to an increase in internal exposure in the general population through radioactive isotopes from ground water supplies and the food chain.”
Physicians find ten grave failures in UN report
The majority of the IPPNW’s report details 10 major errors, flaws or discrepancies in the UNSCEAR paper and explains study’s omissions, underestimates, inept comparisons, misinterpretations and unwarranted conclusions.
1. The total amount of radioactivity released by the disaster was underestimated by UNSCEAR and its estimate was based on disreputable sources of information. UNSCEAR ignored 3.5 years of nonstop emissions of radioactive materials “that continue unabated,” and only dealt with releases during the first weeks of the disaster. UNSCEAR relied on a study by the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) which, the IPPNW points out, “was severely criticized by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission … for its collusion with the nuclear industry.” The independent Norwegian Institute for Air Research’s estimate of cesium-137 released (available to UNSCEAR) was four times higher than the JAEA/UNSCEAR figure (37 PBq instead of 9 PBq). Even Tokyo Electric Power Co. itself estimated that iodine-131 releases were over four times higher than what JAEA/UNSCEAR) reported (500 PBq vs. 120 BPq). The UNSCEAR inexplicably chose to ignore large releases of strontium isotopes and 24 other radionuclides when estimating radiation doses to the public. (A PBq or petabecquerel is a quadrillion or 1015 Becquerels. Put another way, a PBq equals 27,000 curies, and one curie makes 37 billion atomic disintegrations per second.)
2. Internal radiation taken up with food and drink “significantly influences the total radiation dose an individual is exposed to,” the doctors note, and their critique warns pointedly, “UNSCEAR uses as its one and only source, the still unpublished database of the International Atomic Energy Association and the Food and Agriculture Organization. The IAEA was founded … to ‘accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.’ It therefore has a profound conflict of interest.” Food sample data from the IAEA should not be relied on, “as it discredits the assessment of internal radiation doses and makes the findings vulnerable to claims of manipulation.” As with its radiation release estimates, IAEA/UNSCEAR ignored the presence of strontium in food and water. Internal radiation dose estimates made by the Japanese Ministry for Science and Technology were 20, 40 and even 60 times higher than the highest numbers used in the IAEA/UNSCEAR reports.
3. To gauge radiation doses endured by over 24,000 workers on site at Fukushima, UNSCEAR relied solely on figures from Tokyo Electric Power Co., the severely compromised owners of the destroyed reactors. The IPPNW report dismisses all the conclusions drawn from Tepco, saying, “There is no meaningful control or oversight of the nuclear industry in Japan and data from Tepco has in the past frequently been found to be tampered with and falsified.”
4. The UNSCEAR report disregards current scientific fieldwork on actual radiation effects on plant and animal populations. Peer reviewed ecological and genetic studies from Chernobyl and Fukushima find evidence that low dose radiation exposures cause, the doctors point out, “genetic damage such as increased mutation rates, as well as developmental abnormalities, cataracts, tumors, smaller brain sizes in birds and mammals and further injuries to populations, biological communities and ecosystems.” Ignoring these studies, IPPNW says “gives [UNSCEAR] the appearance of bias or lack of rigor.”
5. The special vulnerability of the embryo and fetus to radiation was completely discounted by the UNSCEAR, the physicians note. UNSCEAR shockingly said that doses to the fetus or breast-fed infants “would have been similar to those of other age groups,” a claim that, the IPPNW says, “goes against basic principles of neonatal physiology and radiobiology.” By dismissing the differences between an unborn and an infant, the UNSCEAR “underestimates the health risks of this particularly vulnerable population.” The doctors quote a 2010 report from American Family Physician that, “in utero exposure can be teratogenic, carcinogenic or mutagenic.”
6. Non-cancerous diseases associated with radiation doses — such as cardiovascular diseases, endocrinological and gastrointestinal disorders, infertility, genetic mutations in offspring and miscarriages — have been documented in medical journals, but ate totally dismissed by the UNSCEAR. The physicians remind us that large epidemiological studies have shown undeniable associations of low dose ionizing radiation to non-cancer health effects and “have not been scientifically challenged.”
7. The UNSCEAR report downplays the health impact of low-doses of radiation by misleadingly comparing radioactive fallout to “annual background exposure.” The IPPNW scolds the UNSCEAR saying it is, “not scientific to argue that natural background radiation is safe or that excess radiation from nuclear fallout that stays within the dose range of natural background radiation is harmless.” In particular, ingested or inhaled radioactive materials, “deliver their radioactive dose directly and continuously to the surrounding tissue” — in the thyroid, bone or muscles, etc. — “and therefore pose a much larger danger to internal organs than external background radiation.”
8. Although UNSCEAR’s April 2 Press Release and Executive Summary give the direct and mistaken impression that there will be no radiation health effects from Fukushima, the report itself states that the Committee “does not rule out the possibility of future excess cases or disregard the suffering associated…” Indeed, UNSCEAR admits to “incomplete knowledge about the release rates of radionuclides over time and the weather conditions during the releases.” UNSCEAR concedes that “there were insufficient measurements of gamma dose rate…” and that, “relatively few measurements of foodstuff were made in the first months.” IPPNW warns that these glaring uncertainties completely negate the level of certainty implied in UNSCEAR’s Exec. Summary.
9. UNSCEAR often praises the protective measures taken by Japanese authorities, but the IPPNW finds it “odd that a scientific body like UNSCEAR would turn a blind eye to the many grave mistakes of the Japanese disaster management…” The central government was slow to inform local governments and “failed to convey the severity of the accident,” according to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. “Crisis management ‘did not function correctly,’ the Commission said, and its failure to distribute stable iodine, “caused thousands of children to become irradiated with iodine-131,” IPPNW reports.
10. The UNSCEAR report lists “collective” radiation doses “but does not explain the expected cancer cases that would result from these doses.” This long chapter of IPPNW’s report can’t be summarized easily. The doctors offer conservative estimates, “keeping in mind that these most probably represent underestimations for the reasons listed above.” The IPPNW estimates that 4,300 to 16,800 excess cases of cancer due to the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan in the coming decades. Cancer deaths will range between 2,400 and 9,100. UNSCEAR may call these numbers insignificant, the doctors archly point out, but individual cancers are debilitating and terrifying and they “represent preventable and man-made diseases” and fatalities.
IPPNW concludes that Fukushima’s radiation disaster is “far from over”: the destroyed reactors are still unstable; radioactive liquids and gases continuously leak from the complex wreckage; melted fuel and used fuel in quake-damaged cooling pools hold enormous quantities of radioactivity “and are highly vulnerable to further earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and human error.” Catastrophic releases of radioactivity “could occur at any time and eliminating this risk will take many decades.”
IPPNW finally recommends urgent actions that governments should take, because the UNSCEAR report, “does not adhere to scientific standards of neutrality,” “represents a systematic underestimation,” “conjures up an illusion of scientific certainty that obscures the true impact of the nuclear catastrophe on health and the environment,” and its conclusion is phrased “in such a way that would most likely be misunderstood by most people…”
John LaForge works for Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and anti-war group in Wisconsin, and edits its Quarterly.
27 Comments on "Fukushima: Bad and Getting Worse"
Plantagenet on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 10:58 am
The Japanese were INCREDIBLY STUPID to build a nuclear power plant in a tsunami hazard zone. They were warned just months before the disaster that this nuclear plant might be damaged if a tsunami occurred.
J-Gav on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 11:02 am
It may take a while before some future ‘authorities’ will have to admit the severity of the radiation – Thyroid cancers generally take some time to develop. But, at that future point in time, they will say: “if only we had been in power back then, we would have managed it better. That’ll be a big consolation for the victims, won’t it?
JuanP on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 11:25 am
Plant, A few miles South of Miami we have the Turkey Point nuclear plant, a twin of the Fukushima plant, that is built 20 feet above sea level on the coast in an area susceptible to major hurricanes and potential storm surges of more than 50 feet with 30′ waves on top. The generators to cool things down in a power outage are at a lower 10′ elevation.
Stupidity is universal!
penury on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 11:42 am
The first responsibility of any government or government body is the protection of the government. The release of information which might cause alarm among the population is not to be considered. The effects of nuclear testing on the populace of the U.S. was mainly delayed for about fifty years after the testing. Try to locate the reports of the effects of DU which was used in munitions extensively in Iraq and see what you can find.
forbin on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 12:23 pm
hmm,
Daiichi reactors are GE boiling water reactors (BWR) of an early (1960s) design supplied by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi,
Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants are operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco)
Onagawa Nuclear Power Station is operated by the Tohoku Electric Power Company.
http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311
A culture of safety is paramount!
Dont get me wrong ,with nuclear you deal with the Devil himself – but human management takes it part
Best practice and design are over ridden by corporate greed and the blind eye of government
The best design so I have been told , is the AGR the British made – you had to work hard to stop the things from shutting down .
Still that was over looked and we brits buy the more dangerous westinghouse design to save money
hmm….
Forbin
bobinget on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 1:02 pm
Juan, I share you opinion around ‘stupidity’.
However, ”Turkey Point’ nuclear power plant is built on the shores of relatively shallow Biscayne Bay, not the ocean. South Florida is built on porous coral rock.
When sea levels rise Turkey Point won’t be underwater
but most of Florida will. Water will simply seep up from the ground slowly contaminating fresh water then flooding the Glades and most of Florida. As I recall
TP is way past it’d prime and time to be decommissioned. Since it will cost more in today’s dollars to take it apart then it did to build the sucker,
you all are stuck. FP&L will just wait for nature.
Floridians must be big AGW deniers so don’t believe me if you live there. After 49 years in Coconut Grove
I abandoned Miami.
JJHMAN on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 1:54 pm
As an ex-employee of a nuclear equipment vendor who has been against nuclear power for the entire 35 years since leaving the industry I am an avid reader of reports of the status of nuclear industry issues yet cringe when I see poorly thought out and poorly written stories. This article is almost a parody of such. While purporting to present an article summarizing a published article the author presents a textbook case of slanted, exaggerated writing that undercuts his credibility as an objective reporter of fact. Examples of biased reporting plucked from the text follow:
“United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, published its deeply flawed report April 2. “
“There are exposures allowed by governments, but none of them are safe.”
“leading to UNSCEAR’s deceptive summation.”
“Dozens of independent experts report that radiation attributable health effects are highly likely.” (No supporting evidence of the existence of such experts)
And using discredited pseudo-scientific references such as the Project on Radiation and Human health does not make a very convincing argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_and_Public_Health_Project
The main problem I see with such flawed reporting is that it makes even the quotes from the IPPNW’s report questionable. I feel like I have to read the report myself to determine if I believe the quotes are accurate. Maybe it would have been more credible if the author had just recommended reading the IPPNW report rather than reduce it’s credibility by such poor and biased writing.
JuanP on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 2:02 pm
Bob, I was talking about the sea level rise that happens during hurricanes and other low pressure storm systems, called storm surge, not the slow sea level rise consequence of global warming.
Yes, global warming and sea level rise are not popularly accepted here in Miami. I rent the oceanfront condo in which I live with my wife for $1,200 a month, less than the condo fees and property taxes, from a friend who would leave it empty otherwise . I am in the process of selling my last Miami Beach condo. We will invest our profits in land in the lakes area of the Florida Highlands around Sebring close to US27 where we will build a permaculture farm. Can’t wait to get out, but my immigration status had me tied down here for longer than I wish.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 4:26 pm
Those who endorse and promote nuclear fission technology are misanthropic psychopaths. They are criminally insane. They are EVIL!
Fukushima, an ongoing EXTINCTION event, is only the beginning. There are hundreds more of these aging nuclear fission TIME-BOMB plants on the surface of the Earth. Imagine what will happen if Japan or the United States suffers an extended grid collapse.
Makati1 on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 9:05 pm
RRR, you are correct. There is nothing good about nuclear. They were pushed on the public so that the public paid to generate the nuclear materials for the tens of thousands of nuclear bombs scattered around the world today. All for profit and power, not energy or safety for the people. Three Mile Island should have been the end of the nuclear industry, but it was covered up and forgotten until Chernobyl, now Fukushima. How many chances do we get to save the world and our families?
I think it is “three strikes and you are out”. Fukushima is slow poison, no matter how much pronuclear JJHMAN might protest. Anyone who supports nuclear energy today is probably financially invested in it and common sense is over ridden by greed. But then, I don’t have to worry. If I am exposed, I will likely die of old age before I get cancer. It all of you under 50 who should be concerned about the lies and coverups going on. The rest of us don’t have to worry.
SilentRunning on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 9:45 pm
Richard Ralph Roehl wrote:
>Fukushima, an ongoing EXTINCTION event
I’ve seen several people refer to Fukushima as an “Extinction event” – but what I haven’t seen is any kind of explanation as to how the extinction occurs.
I think we agree that Fukushima is a horrible mess, and will affect its immediate surroundings for centuries. But I don’t see the human race dying off because of Fukushima. If it were going to happen – shouldn’t it start happening in Japan? Why aren’t the Japanese dropping like flies – or already dead?
Northwest Resident on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 9:50 pm
SilentRunning — Never interrupt a doomsday prophet when he’s deep into imagining worst case scenarios and convincing himself that his dark visions are fact.
diemos on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 10:22 pm
“There is nothing good about nuclear.”
It generates electricity. Electricity is pretty handy.
GregT on Sun, 20th Jul 2014 11:30 pm
Electricity may be handy, and I enjoy using it as much as the next guy. However, it is not a necessity, and it is contributing greatly to the destruction of what IS necessary for our survival. The planet Earth. Our priorities are completely messed up.
Makati1 on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 3:31 am
FYI:
http://fukushimaupdate.com/
http://www.newscientist.com/special/fukushima-crisis
http://www.naturalnews.com/Fukushima.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/fukushima
Come to your own conclusion…
Davy on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 7:23 am
Greg, here in central Missouri people did not have electricity in the rural areas until the late 40’s. The rural communities thrived. It is a better way of life just ask an Amish. Amish use a small amount when they must to be able to sell to the “English” another name for Americans. They are not connected to the grid and use generators and batteries. I imagine these days some AltE. The problem is getting from here to there. We cannot at this point turn the power off without a complete collapse. Complete is the only word to describe what will happen. We can’t even manage a power down of electricity at least in the short term because of our industrial food system. Food insecurity will be a quick collapse variable. I doubt longer term with the size of the global population we can manage a power down that will not lead to a collapse at some point considering the global population size. Modern Food and energy absolutely rely upon electricity and this powers our overpopulation. I see grid instability coming with triage of vital nodes to a resulting bifurcated system of powered and unpowered IOW rich and poor. We will see a return of areas without electricity because of high cost and shortages. The powered areas will suffer brown outs. So in effect a Pakistan in the rich west. When the global system is at this point it will be barely functional and the resulting decease in complexity, economic activity, and energy intensity will quickly cause entropic decay of the remaining powered nodes of BAU. At some point the descent will be quick as the remaining powered areas fail. I see this lasting anywhere from 3 to 10 years at most with a variable rate of descent. This forced power down could start in 3 to 10 years. Just picture the life cycle of the products that power our complex life being 3 to 10 years on average. Look at deceased economic activity and energy intensity further restricting new products to address entropic decay of these vital replacement products 3 to 5 years. Finally picture the systematic decay of command/control and the all-important financial system 3 to 5 years. If we have a slow gentle descent most likely it will be the forced power down scenario removing life support from the global BAU leading to the decay of our delocalized “locals”. I see a quick descent with a disruption of food, liquid fuels, or global conflict. The predictive numbers are at best vague but you get the point with one to three years can be considered short, medium is three to five, and longer term five to ten.
Joe Obi on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 8:52 am
Doomsday people, gotta love them. They are the future of mankind. When lifes ends on earth, they will blame nuclear power and everything else they don’t understand but fear. All technologies carry risk, but it easier for these people to keep driving their cars and bemoaning nuclear power. How a test for you dumb asses. Get into your car, start it and let it run, with the garage door closed. Then tell me how dangerous nuclear power is.
Kenz300 on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 12:20 pm
Quote — “the Fukushima catastrophe is understood by both groups as an ongoing disaster, not the singular event portrayed by industry and commercial media.”
——————————
Had Fukishima been a wind or solar power plant the site would already be cleaned up and all the people would be back home…….
Nuclear energy is too dangerous and too costly…….
The cost to clean up and store the nuclear waste will go on FOREVER.
Kris on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 12:28 pm
What a flawed article. It takes a counter argument as gospel and openly calls out another organization’s study as flawed.
Of course ‘any’ radiation can ‘potentially’ cause health effects. They are right in saying that this is argreed upon, even by those in the report that is being refuted. But we all absorb radiation all the time. Stating that nuclear power is terrible because someone gets a very low dose from it and that can cause health issues is like saying we should all never walk outside again because the sun is irradiating us.
GregT on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 12:43 pm
Joe Obi,
Congratulations! Your comment takes the cake for the dumbest post of the year award. Never mind closing yourself in your garage with your car’s engine running. How about a nice vacation in Fukushima? I hear it’s a nice spot to visit this time of the year, if you can find a way into the exclusion zone. Report back in about 20 years.
SilentRunning on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 6:55 pm
Makati1, thanks for the links – but none of them explain how Fukushima is/will be an “Extinction Event”.
Will there be tens of billions of dollars in cleanup? Yes. Will there be cancer cases? Yes (especially in Japan). I’m even willing to concede that there might be a handful of cancer cases in the USA from seafood, etc.
But EXTINCTION? No.
TemplarMyst on Mon, 21st Jul 2014 8:28 pm
To add a bit on to some of the other comments, the reason some of us have gone back to looking at nuclear after having initially rejected it is the need to try, in some fashion, to deal with the energy issues facing the planet.
Davy’s comment makes a decent summary of the dilemma. A sudden collapse and you have 7 billion humans all desperately looking for food. Nothing will survive that. Every last living thing will be devastated as every ecosystem is plundered.
Yet to maintain some level of BAU and avoid that, and lessen the damage of climate change via CO2 and CH4, you need electricity which doesn’t generate those gases. Leaves you with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and, well, nuclear.
Hopefully Germany will show us how to do this, but the initial indications are not encouraging. They have about 6 times more wind and solar CAPACITY than they have nuclear, but they are producing a scant 20% of their electricity PRODUCTION from the renewable sources. Google Fraunhaufer Institute Energy Statistics – a very pro-renewable source with very nice, easy to understand charts.
Nuclear is incredibly energy dense, renewables incredibly energy diffuse. Newer nuclear technologies can burn up significantly more of the fuel than older tech. Worried about fuel rods? They’re fuel – recycle and recycle and recycle them. Google EBR-II for a very successful, 40 year old technology that demonstrates how. It operated for over 30 years without an incident, and put itself through tests that eerily mimic Three Mile Island and Fukushima. The reactor was engineered to, and did, just shut itself down – no backup electricity, no A/C, so operator intervention.
We know how to build this stuff.
And yes, we’re bathed in radiation all the time. You can’t escape it. It’s in the air, the earth, the rocks, everything. And yes, it causes mutations. Always has. Always will. Way before there were ever humans around, and will long after we’re gone.
It’s a question of risk vs benefit. It’s why such radical reactionaries like James Hansen and others are asking it be revisited.
Gabriel Fere on Tue, 22nd Jul 2014 12:55 am
Real stupid article, mostly just trying get fear for green agenda, if the radiation is so much the cause if the cancer, why Ramsar Iran, where the natural radiation is double the radiation at Fukushima has lower cancer rate the suburbia organic fed population of New Jersey ?
Davy on Tue, 22nd Jul 2014 7:02 am
My issue with NUK power is strictly related to the descent of globalism and modern industrial society I see coming. When we enter the terminal phase of modern man we will not have the tools, resources, and organization to maintain these highly toxic materials and processes. It has added a poison pill to descent for many areas if not the whole earth. I have read those who caution against the hysteria for NUK’s currently and they make good points currently. If you are a doomer NUK’s are a disaster in waiting. It does not matter NUK’s may delay descent. It matters that postmodern man will never be able to manage NUK’s in a descent. Now that it is already too late with the genie out of the bottle I have no answers. Do we embrace NUK to maintain BAU to avoid NUK’s killing us in their entropic decay? The best case scenario is slow manage de-growth of NUK with proper waste disposal a must.
Thomas Nissen on Tue, 22nd Jul 2014 8:56 am
I live in Fukushima. I’ve lived here for 25 years. I was here when the earthquake hit. I have no intention of leaving. I think folks should know that there have been zero radiation-related deaths here and zero cases of radiation sickness as well. My wife and I and our three children have been screened for radiation with a test called a “full body count” and have been found to have very low, virtually harmless levels of radiation exposure. I have met no one here who is suffering from any radiation related illness. BTW I am 100% opposed to nuclear pcwer and 1000% opposed to nuclear weapons. I just felt some accuracy was needed in this discussion.
TemplarMyst on Tue, 22nd Jul 2014 2:52 pm
@Thomas Nissen
Thanks. Good to get direct input from the scene. I’ve read others who live in Fukushima essentially say the same thing.
Curious what your take is on the larger picture discussed here on PeakOil, given you are opposed to nuclear.
TemplarMyst on Tue, 22nd Jul 2014 2:58 pm
@Davy
Yeah, I go back and forth over how much to investigate nuclear within the context of peak oil and collapse. Given what has happened in Germany so far it seems pretty unlikely a renewables approach would keep BAU going for very long, but it certainly does have the advantage of not having to deal with extremely advanced technology and the management of a radioactive fuel cycle.
Well, okay, at least to a point, I guess. Solar panel and wind turbine manufacture seems pretty sophisticated, and my understanding is the mining of the rare earths used in both their manufactures leaves significant radioactive tailing ponds behind. Still, probably easier to deal with than reactor cores and fuel assemblies.
I haven’t got an answer either. It’s just, damn, collapse is gonna be ugly. It’d be nice if there would be some way to avoid it. Mebbe there just ain’t.
Sigh.