8 ms·

The Panic Over Fukushima

92 points by aakil 14y ago

dmoy 14y ago
I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lisper 14y ago
  Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man It's not authoritative, but if you really want to dig in to the issue the references at the end of the article are a good place to start.
- archgoon 14y ago
  Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents. So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum you're stuck with interpolation. Ideally, we'd like a good, predictive, biological based model that explicitly showed how you go from biological damage to cancer or death. We don't have that (though there are people researching it), so we go with statistical techniques. This results in basically 3 different proposed models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model The Linear No Threshold Model: Draw a line between the two regions. Bam! Done. This is clearly wrong for very large doses, but is used mostly to try and estimate the effect of a small change in radiation exposure to predict increase in cancer incidence. This is very important for public policy. Of course, this makes all these models politically contested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model Threshold Model This model predicts that small amounts of radiation has zero effect on cancer incidence. According to this model, going to higher altitude, or taking a plane flight, won't increase your risk of cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis Radiation Hormesis A little radiation is good for you! The biological argument is that your body gets used to dealing with damage from radiation. Don't tax it too hard and you'll be stronger. So take a plane trip, and enjoy the X-ray scans!
  - davvid 14y ago
    A little radiation is good for you! The science says otherwise. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-radiation-can-cause-big-problems.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-ra...
    - fixedit 14y ago
      Hate to keep taking issue with your comments, but they are pattently wrong. Using a study of atomic bomb studies and an anti-nuke web site do not constitute science. Studies Ive read, completely contradict your statements (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104294 http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?artic...) for one. There are others, and I am sure that I will not be convincing you, but I didn't want your voice to be the only one on the issue here.
  - justatdotin 14y ago
    probably worth noting that it's LNT, which implies No Safe Dose, that forms the basis for international radiation protection standards
- tsotha 14y ago
  The LNT model is clearly wrong, but people like numbers even if they're wrong, which is why you see it used in planning and media reports. There are probably fewer cancer cases than LNT would predict, but beyond that we simply don't know.
- davidcuddeback 14y ago
  That's about where the author lost me. Up to that point, he seemed to be pulling numbers from research, but then he makes a transition to pulling numbers and formulas out of his ass. For example, I'm not convinced that "if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average" is a valid deduction. He then goes on to explain how "to know how many excess cancers there will be." I listened to an interview with a radiation expert [1] a couple weeks ago, and he made it very clear that we don't know how to make those calculations that the author of this article is claiming to know how to make. If I were to try to regurgitate the points from the interview, I'd risk spreading a misunderstanding of the issues. So instead, if you're interested in what the experts think on this subject, you can refer to the original source [1]. [1] http://www.pointofinquiry.org/nuclear_risk_and_reason_david_brenner_and_david_ropeik/ http://www.pointofinquiry.org/nuclear_risk_and_reason_david_...
  - yk 14y ago
    The spreading out effect is a direct consequence of the linear no threshold model. If you have a total dose D spread over N people, then everyone receives a dose D/N. With some constant k converting individual dose to cancer rates, you end up with an expected number of k D/N * N cases of cancer. ( So it is almost certainly wrong, however it is not understood how wrong it is.)
altarelli 14y ago
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....
- nohat 14y ago
  He should leave his tenured position at a major university to demonstrate his conviction? That's not a meaningful point or challenge.
  - altarelli 14y ago
    we have the same point: why should he take a morally superior position and not mislead the public? this is what the documentary is about.
    - nohat 14y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. My point was that challenging him to move to Fukushima doesn't show his hypocrisy or anything. He has very good reasons not to move to Fukushima that have nothing to do with the threat of radiation.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Are you seriously trying to argue with a physics professor using an Adam Curtis documentary? Get outta here....
  - altarelli 14y ago
    listen to Seaborg.
mbateman 14y ago
Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.
- radu_floricica 14y ago
  You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life. We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the new deaths a really tiny percentage, which means policy-wise it's hardly worth discussing.
  - mbateman 14y ago
    I'm certainly not trying to imply any policy prescriptions. I'm strongly in favor of nuclear power. But if there's risk we should know what it is so it can be distributed/compensated for. I'm not saying it's not worth the cost (or even trying to discuss things in those terms), but I'm not convinced this outcome is insignificant. If this article is right, many of these people will die N years sooner than they would have otherwise. How high does N have to be before it gets worth discussing?
    - altarelli 14y ago
      The risk for the GE MkI was (is) well known, but physicist-socipath Seaborg chose to hand out the operating license: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744
- gwern 14y ago
  It is pretty bad, but people have seriously argued that the evacuation itself killed more people: Japan (like any other highly populated First World country!) is stuffed full of old or sick people, and when you force them to evacuate quickly and be separated from all their stuff, their doctors and medical records, their local pharmacies, and subject them to a ton of stress in every respect - well, quite a few people are going to kick the bucket.
radu_floricica 14y ago
> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at least of specifications and margins.
- jackpirate 14y ago
  But it could have been much worse, say like Chernobyl, and it wasn't due to good engineering.
  - mitchty 14y ago
    How could it have been like Chernobyl? The Fukushima reactors didn't have graphite moderators. Totally different reactor technologies, equivocating them is spurious at best.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Using a totally different reactor technology strikes me as an example of good engineering.
    - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
      The Chernobyl reactor also had no containment vessel, so the initial core failure blew a cloud of radioactive fire into the air. The Fukushima containment vessel kept most of the crap in one place until it could melt into a cohesive mass.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    You wouldn't get the graphite fly ash that turned Chernobyl from a localized problem into an international headache, so no, it wouldn't have been as bad as Chernobyl. But it could have been much worse than it was.
jbuzbee 14y ago
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)
- davvid 14y ago
  Really? Are you serious? BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.) The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 Do you really want to test your theory?
  - dweekly 14y ago
    You're missing his point, which is that he lives in Denver and is happy with his decision. :)
    - davvid 14y ago
      I was pointing out that the (background) radiation in Denver is not the same as the fallout from Fukushima.
      - sageikosa 14y ago
        Radiation is radiation; its not homeopathic. Radioactive isotopes are one source of radiation, insolation and cosmic background radiation are others. In this case the OP was referring specifically to maximum radiation exposure levels as defined by some big-"I" international organization.
        fosap 14y ago
        >Radiation is radiation No. It is not. There is alpha, gamma, beta+ and beta-. And there is a huge difference. And how healthy it is strongly depends on the area of you body that is exposed. If Your skin is exposed to alpha radiation it can be as harmless as a sunburn (it's a matter of the dosis). If you get alpha radiator into your bloodstream that's a whole different story at the same dosis.
justincormack 14y ago
The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]: ...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response. How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question. Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government. For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity. (the rest is worth reading too) If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems? [1] http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems? And yet, the hottest spots seem to be healthier places to live than Denver... Is that a really big problem?
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Sure, but who in his right mind would live in Denver?
JPRan 14y ago
To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.
- jbuzbee 14y ago
  As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima
  - altarelli 14y ago
    ...the other trouble with sociopaths, is that they have no trouble making untrue statements: you shouldn't trust (because you simply can't) the exposure maps. The German Embassy didn't either: they knew better by themselves.
  - adrr 14y ago
    You don't have radioactive iodine floating around. Radon doesn't asbord into your thyroid glands.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Nicole060 14y ago
  Yeah, losing your present lifestyle and job to go live in one of the most xenophobic country of the earth, and one that doesn't have a lot of skilled English speakers at that, just to make a point, sounds like a good plan, right. You really have to be one of those "wapanese", people from the west who are obsessed with japan, to be insane enough to do such a thing through your own will. You don't have a choice if you're employed at a company that does business in Japan and you have to move there for a year or two. But someone who does it with nothing compelling him to ? Madness. Japan is the last country I'd want to live in, among the developed, industrial countries of the world. People talk about racism in Europe and America. Well, of course racism is still alive and kickin', but they don't know what racism is until they take a look at Japan. In the west we're at the point where we're taking in lots of immigrants from diverse background, be it educated or uneducated, from various countries and cultures in the world. That isn't the case in Japan. It's already kinda exceptional for an European to live in Japan. It is ridiculous to expect anyone to go live in Fukushima just to make a point. Hell, it might be technically impossible. For a white foreigner to work in Japan, you have to take an upper class job, that is, something in engineering, education, entertainment.. or else you'll never get any work visa. But the thing is, there probably ain't a lot of those jobs in the evacuated area of Fukushima. So what you are asking him to do might even be impossible. There might be a way if that person is willing to travel long distances from home to the workplace.. who'd do that kind of stupid effort anyway just because some bloke on the internet asked him so ?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nacker 14y ago
The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves." The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, farms, businesses and property, and the beginning of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami exposed the biggest secret of all: that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth." http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_biggest_secret.mp3 http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_bigge...
- Natsu 14y ago
  I question that conclusion. The power shortages have been quite troubling. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/120309-japan-fukushima-anniversary-energy-shortage/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/12030... http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207030064 http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685
  - nacker 14y ago
    I read your links. I know the audio is almost an hour, so I don't expect you to have listened before you posted. According to Mr. Corbett, who lives in Japan, the predicted shortages did not in fact materialize this summer, and in fact, a SURPLUS of power was reported. He doesn't assert that without the 50 plants currently offline there will be no power shortfall. Most of the report is about alternatives such as solar, geothermal, thorium, and wave power. The point is that Japan has gone over a year now with almost NO nuclear power, and the sky has not fallen. There are alternatives. There are also large corporate/governmental interests who PREFER the present nuclear policy, and that policy is now opposed by a large number of the Japanese people. Did you personally suffer any consequences? Are you perhaps suspicious of TEPCO, or the WSJ's motives?
    - 14y ago
e12e 14y ago
"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis." It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been no fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by natural disasters or just poor maintenance. So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering project. The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of the coast as it should (could) have been. Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false dichotomy. The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from cancer -- it's that generations might be affected by a single accident -- and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human civilization have existed. Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of nuclear fallout.
- chmars 14y ago
  In addition, we as mankind know how to deal with the aftermath of a tsunami: We clean up, rebuild and so on … After a nuclear disaster, we mostly remain helpless observers. As of today, the Japanese neither fully know what actually happened and still have no idea how to deal with the Fukushima aftermath in a long-term. The same goes for Tschernobyl and many other sites with nuclear fallout and waste. Nuclear energy is like a dragon awoken without any possibility to put him at sleep ever again.
sgoranson 14y ago
Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause: First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00... Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't been able to produce low-background steel since 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet with each nuclear mistake we've made.
- Natsu 14y ago
  That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons! Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.
  - justatdotin 14y ago
    I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite situation.
alanfalcon 14y ago
Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem) http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/ http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/ Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.
- justsee 14y ago
  TEPCO measured radiation levels of 10 Sv in the basement of Reactor 1 in June this year [1]. In March TEPCO measured radiation levels of 73 Sv/h in the container vessel [2]. A Fukushima worker tweeted a radiation level estimation of > 1000 Sv for another part of the reactor (the endoscope used for radiation testing is only rated to 1000 Sv, so cannot be used) [3]. The radiation level next to Chernobyl immediately after the meltdown was 300 Sv/h. Also in March, Arnie Gundersen of FaireWinds went to Tokyo to collect soil samples from parks and streets, and on testing the samples back in the US concluded they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States. [4] The XKCD cartoon was produced during the perceived hysteria following the aftermath and reporting of the Fukushima radiation and fallout, but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified. [1] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html [2] http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel/ http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel... [3] https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664 https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664 [4] http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-considered-nuclear-waste-us http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-co...
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >...but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified. If you're living in the reactor containment vessel.
    - 14y ago
tokenadult 14y ago
The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about. P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there. http://www.epsiloncamp.org/ http://www.epsiloncamp.org/ I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country. P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.
- nacker 14y ago
  "I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country." OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I do. First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit. Would that even make sense? But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition. "Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive waste which lasts for thousands of years." Bad for the country? While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS). Yeah. Right. What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness, death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference analysis?
cantankerous 14y ago
Random question: Could the altitude of Denver contribute to its lower incidence rate of cancer? Your body does have to work a bit harder to live higher up. Just curious.
rerkh 14y ago
With 2 reactors online and several thermal plants taken offline Japan is more than meeting it's current demand even though an exceptionally hot summer. (Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the demand & availability numbers. Not just making stuff up in advance like others here.) In fact if you took the 2 reactors offline they would still meet demand. Now as the renewable energy industry actually gets a chance, rather than being squashed by the nuclear industry stranglehold on government the reactors are becoming clearly unnecessary long term. Statements like many of the blog posts here are frankly ridiculous propaganda.
pella 14y ago
Infertility and High Natural Background Radiation ... "Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate that women's Primary infertility rate in the HBR residents was considerably less than in the area with ordinary background radiation." http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-536.pdf http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-53... "Y. Tabarraie , S. Refahi , M.H. Dehghan and M. Mashoufi , 2008. Impact of High Natural Background Radiation on Woman`s Primary Infertility. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 3: 534-536."

92 points by aakil 14y ago

dmoy 14y ago

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lisper 14y ago
Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man It's not authoritative, but if you really want to dig in to the issue the references at the end of the article are a good place to start.
archgoon 14y ago
Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents. So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum you're stuck with interpolation. Ideally, we'd like a good, predictive, biological based model that explicitly showed how you go from biological damage to cancer or death. We don't have that (though there are people researching it), so we go with statistical techniques. This results in basically 3 different proposed models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model The Linear No Threshold Model: Draw a line between the two regions. Bam! Done. This is clearly wrong for very large doses, but is used mostly to try and estimate the effect of a small change in radiation exposure to predict increase in cancer incidence. This is very important for public policy. Of course, this makes all these models politically contested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model Threshold Model This model predicts that small amounts of radiation has zero effect on cancer incidence. According to this model, going to higher altitude, or taking a plane flight, won't increase your risk of cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis Radiation Hormesis A little radiation is good for you! The biological argument is that your body gets used to dealing with damage from radiation. Don't tax it too hard and you'll be stronger. So take a plane trip, and enjoy the X-ray scans!
- davvid 14y ago
  A little radiation is good for you! The science says otherwise. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-radiation-can-cause-big-problems.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-ra...
  - fixedit 14y ago
    Hate to keep taking issue with your comments, but they are pattently wrong. Using a study of atomic bomb studies and an anti-nuke web site do not constitute science. Studies Ive read, completely contradict your statements (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104294 http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?artic...) for one. There are others, and I am sure that I will not be convincing you, but I didn't want your voice to be the only one on the issue here.
- justatdotin 14y ago
  probably worth noting that it's LNT, which implies No Safe Dose, that forms the basis for international radiation protection standards
tsotha 14y ago
The LNT model is clearly wrong, but people like numbers even if they're wrong, which is why you see it used in planning and media reports. There are probably fewer cancer cases than LNT would predict, but beyond that we simply don't know.
davidcuddeback 14y ago
That's about where the author lost me. Up to that point, he seemed to be pulling numbers from research, but then he makes a transition to pulling numbers and formulas out of his ass. For example, I'm not convinced that "if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average" is a valid deduction. He then goes on to explain how "to know how many excess cancers there will be." I listened to an interview with a radiation expert [1] a couple weeks ago, and he made it very clear that we don't know how to make those calculations that the author of this article is claiming to know how to make. If I were to try to regurgitate the points from the interview, I'd risk spreading a misunderstanding of the issues. So instead, if you're interested in what the experts think on this subject, you can refer to the original source [1]. [1] http://www.pointofinquiry.org/nuclear_risk_and_reason_david_brenner_and_david_ropeik/ http://www.pointofinquiry.org/nuclear_risk_and_reason_david_...
- yk 14y ago
  The spreading out effect is a direct consequence of the linear no threshold model. If you have a total dose D spread over N people, then everyone receives a dose D/N. With some constant k converting individual dose to cancer rates, you end up with an expected number of k D/N * N cases of cancer. ( So it is almost certainly wrong, however it is not understood how wrong it is.)

altarelli 14y ago

Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....

nohat 14y ago
He should leave his tenured position at a major university to demonstrate his conviction? That's not a meaningful point or challenge.
- altarelli 14y ago
  we have the same point: why should he take a morally superior position and not mislead the public? this is what the documentary is about.
  - nohat 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. My point was that challenging him to move to Fukushima doesn't show his hypocrisy or anything. He has very good reasons not to move to Fukushima that have nothing to do with the threat of radiation.
andreasvc 14y ago
Are you seriously trying to argue with a physics professor using an Adam Curtis documentary? Get outta here....
- altarelli 14y ago
  listen to Seaborg.

mbateman 14y ago

Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.

radu_floricica 14y ago
You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life. We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the new deaths a really tiny percentage, which means policy-wise it's hardly worth discussing.
- mbateman 14y ago
  I'm certainly not trying to imply any policy prescriptions. I'm strongly in favor of nuclear power. But if there's risk we should know what it is so it can be distributed/compensated for. I'm not saying it's not worth the cost (or even trying to discuss things in those terms), but I'm not convinced this outcome is insignificant. If this article is right, many of these people will die N years sooner than they would have otherwise. How high does N have to be before it gets worth discussing?
  - altarelli 14y ago
    The risk for the GE MkI was (is) well known, but physicist-socipath Seaborg chose to hand out the operating license: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744
gwern 14y ago
It is pretty bad, but people have seriously argued that the evacuation itself killed more people: Japan (like any other highly populated First World country!) is stuffed full of old or sick people, and when you force them to evacuate quickly and be separated from all their stuff, their doctors and medical records, their local pharmacies, and subject them to a ton of stress in every respect - well, quite a few people are going to kick the bucket.

radu_floricica 14y ago

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at least of specifications and margins.

jackpirate 14y ago
But it could have been much worse, say like Chernobyl, and it wasn't due to good engineering.
- mitchty 14y ago
  How could it have been like Chernobyl? The Fukushima reactors didn't have graphite moderators. Totally different reactor technologies, equivocating them is spurious at best.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Using a totally different reactor technology strikes me as an example of good engineering.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    The Chernobyl reactor also had no containment vessel, so the initial core failure blew a cloud of radioactive fire into the air. The Fukushima containment vessel kept most of the crap in one place until it could melt into a cohesive mass.
- tsotha 14y ago
  You wouldn't get the graphite fly ash that turned Chernobyl from a localized problem into an international headache, so no, it wouldn't have been as bad as Chernobyl. But it could have been much worse than it was.

jbuzbee 14y ago

As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)

davvid 14y ago
Really? Are you serious? BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.) The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 Do you really want to test your theory?
- dweekly 14y ago
  You're missing his point, which is that he lives in Denver and is happy with his decision. :)
  - davvid 14y ago
    I was pointing out that the (background) radiation in Denver is not the same as the fallout from Fukushima.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      Radiation is radiation; its not homeopathic. Radioactive isotopes are one source of radiation, insolation and cosmic background radiation are others. In this case the OP was referring specifically to maximum radiation exposure levels as defined by some big-"I" international organization.
      - fosap 14y ago
        >Radiation is radiation No. It is not. There is alpha, gamma, beta+ and beta-. And there is a huge difference. And how healthy it is strongly depends on the area of you body that is exposed. If Your skin is exposed to alpha radiation it can be as harmless as a sunburn (it's a matter of the dosis). If you get alpha radiator into your bloodstream that's a whole different story at the same dosis.

justincormack 14y ago

The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]: ...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response. How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question. Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government. For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity. (the rest is worth reading too) If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems? [1] http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

rbanffy 14y ago
> If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems? And yet, the hottest spots seem to be healthier places to live than Denver... Is that a really big problem?
- tsotha 14y ago
  Sure, but who in his right mind would live in Denver?

JPRan 14y ago

To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.

jbuzbee 14y ago
As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima
- altarelli 14y ago
  ...the other trouble with sociopaths, is that they have no trouble making untrue statements: you shouldn't trust (because you simply can't) the exposure maps. The German Embassy didn't either: they knew better by themselves.
- adrr 14y ago
  You don't have radioactive iodine floating around. Radon doesn't asbord into your thyroid glands.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Nicole060 14y ago
Yeah, losing your present lifestyle and job to go live in one of the most xenophobic country of the earth, and one that doesn't have a lot of skilled English speakers at that, just to make a point, sounds like a good plan, right. You really have to be one of those "wapanese", people from the west who are obsessed with japan, to be insane enough to do such a thing through your own will. You don't have a choice if you're employed at a company that does business in Japan and you have to move there for a year or two. But someone who does it with nothing compelling him to ? Madness. Japan is the last country I'd want to live in, among the developed, industrial countries of the world. People talk about racism in Europe and America. Well, of course racism is still alive and kickin', but they don't know what racism is until they take a look at Japan. In the west we're at the point where we're taking in lots of immigrants from diverse background, be it educated or uneducated, from various countries and cultures in the world. That isn't the case in Japan. It's already kinda exceptional for an European to live in Japan. It is ridiculous to expect anyone to go live in Fukushima just to make a point. Hell, it might be technically impossible. For a white foreigner to work in Japan, you have to take an upper class job, that is, something in engineering, education, entertainment.. or else you'll never get any work visa. But the thing is, there probably ain't a lot of those jobs in the evacuated area of Fukushima. So what you are asking him to do might even be impossible. There might be a way if that person is willing to travel long distances from home to the workplace.. who'd do that kind of stupid effort anyway just because some bloke on the internet asked him so ?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nacker 14y ago

The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves." The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, farms, businesses and property, and the beginning of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami exposed the biggest secret of all: that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth." http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_biggest_secret.mp3 http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_bigge...

Natsu 14y ago
I question that conclusion. The power shortages have been quite troubling. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/120309-japan-fukushima-anniversary-energy-shortage/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/12030... http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207030064 http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685
- nacker 14y ago
  I read your links. I know the audio is almost an hour, so I don't expect you to have listened before you posted. According to Mr. Corbett, who lives in Japan, the predicted shortages did not in fact materialize this summer, and in fact, a SURPLUS of power was reported. He doesn't assert that without the 50 plants currently offline there will be no power shortfall. Most of the report is about alternatives such as solar, geothermal, thorium, and wave power. The point is that Japan has gone over a year now with almost NO nuclear power, and the sky has not fallen. There are alternatives. There are also large corporate/governmental interests who PREFER the present nuclear policy, and that policy is now opposed by a large number of the Japanese people. Did you personally suffer any consequences? Are you perhaps suspicious of TEPCO, or the WSJ's motives?
  - 14y ago

e12e 14y ago

"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis." It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been no fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by natural disasters or just poor maintenance. So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering project. The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of the coast as it should (could) have been. Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false dichotomy. The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from cancer -- it's that generations might be affected by a single accident -- and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human civilization have existed. Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of nuclear fallout.

chmars 14y ago
In addition, we as mankind know how to deal with the aftermath of a tsunami: We clean up, rebuild and so on … After a nuclear disaster, we mostly remain helpless observers. As of today, the Japanese neither fully know what actually happened and still have no idea how to deal with the Fukushima aftermath in a long-term. The same goes for Tschernobyl and many other sites with nuclear fallout and waste. Nuclear energy is like a dragon awoken without any possibility to put him at sleep ever again.

sgoranson 14y ago

Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause: First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00... Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't been able to produce low-background steel since 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet with each nuclear mistake we've made.

Natsu 14y ago
That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.
tikhonj 14y ago
The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons! Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.
- justatdotin 14y ago
  I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite situation.

alanfalcon 14y ago

Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem) http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/ http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/ Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.

justsee 14y ago
TEPCO measured radiation levels of 10 Sv in the basement of Reactor 1 in June this year [1]. In March TEPCO measured radiation levels of 73 Sv/h in the container vessel [2]. A Fukushima worker tweeted a radiation level estimation of > 1000 Sv for another part of the reactor (the endoscope used for radiation testing is only rated to 1000 Sv, so cannot be used) [3]. The radiation level next to Chernobyl immediately after the meltdown was 300 Sv/h. Also in March, Arnie Gundersen of FaireWinds went to Tokyo to collect soil samples from parks and streets, and on testing the samples back in the US concluded they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States. [4] The XKCD cartoon was produced during the perceived hysteria following the aftermath and reporting of the Fukushima radiation and fallout, but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified. [1] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html [2] http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel/ http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel... [3] https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664 https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664 [4] http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-considered-nuclear-waste-us http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-co...
- tsotha 14y ago
  >...but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified. If you're living in the reactor containment vessel.
  - 14y ago

tokenadult 14y ago

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about. P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there. http://www.epsiloncamp.org/ http://www.epsiloncamp.org/ I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country. P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.

nacker 14y ago
"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country." OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I do. First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit. Would that even make sense? But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition. "Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive waste which lasts for thousands of years." Bad for the country? While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS). Yeah. Right. What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness, death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference analysis?

cantankerous 14y ago

Random question: Could the altitude of Denver contribute to its lower incidence rate of cancer? Your body does have to work a bit harder to live higher up. Just curious.

rerkh 14y ago

With 2 reactors online and several thermal plants taken offline Japan is more than meeting it's current demand even though an exceptionally hot summer. (Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the demand & availability numbers. Not just making stuff up in advance like others here.) In fact if you took the 2 reactors offline they would still meet demand. Now as the renewable energy industry actually gets a chance, rather than being squashed by the nuclear industry stranglehold on government the reactors are becoming clearly unnecessary long term. Statements like many of the blog posts here are frankly ridiculous propaganda.

pella 14y ago

Infertility and High Natural Background Radiation ... "Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate that women's Primary infertility rate in the HBR residents was considerably less than in the area with ordinary background radiation." http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-536.pdf http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-53... "Y. Tabarraie , S. Refahi , M.H. Dehghan and M. Mashoufi , 2008. Impact of High Natural Background Radiation on Woman`s Primary Infertility. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 3: 534-536."