4 ms·

> It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. Which is a fucking scandal and really pisses anybody who knows anything about radiation off.

mikeyouse 11y ago
The Fukushima exclusion zone is still dozens of square miles where upwards of 100,000 people have had to abandon their homes and businesses.. That's a decent approximation to what happened in Chernobyl. Clearly there was much more radiation released in Ukraine but that doesn't mean the area around Fukushima is safe.. Here's a map; http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  Nor does the existence of an exclusion zone mean it isn't.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    That's pretty much exactly what it means.. They have actual measurements of environmental radiation.. In anything orange or red, you're looking at a minimum of 20mSv/year which is about 1/2 of the annual dose limit for US nuclear workers.. In the deep red areas, you're looking at more than 50mSv/year which is approaching the level of increased cancer incidence. Nobody is going to live in those areas for a very long time.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      Nobody is going to be allowed to live in those areas for a very long time. That doesn't mean it isn't safe to live there. It means an overcautious government won't let people live there. You even said yourself the highest levels outside the plant grounds are only approaching the levels of increased cancer incidence. So, what other than abundance of caution and paranoia about radiation is keeping people from returning?
      - mikeyouse 11y ago
        Are you honestly arguing that dozens of mSv of radiation annually are safe? That big bad government is preventing people from doing what they want? 50mSv is approaching the level of guaranteed higher incidence of cancer -- If you lived in the exclusion zone, you'd be receiving that every single year for the rest of your, and your childrens' lives. Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer.[1] Now imagine receiving multiples of that dosage every single year in perpetuity. The relative lack of cancer deaths in Ukraine wasn't due to 'safe' fallout, but due to the fact that they just closed entire cities and forced everyone within a thousand square miles to leave. [1] - http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.long http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.long
        bsder 11y ago
        > Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer. However, this holds for practically every worker near industrial equipment. Steelworker cancer rates used to be off the charts--the old saw at Bethlehem Steel was "nobody ever retires from the car shop"--you wound up dead before retirement. (car shop being a place where they made railroad cars). IBM used to remove (probably still does) pregnant women from their semiconductor fabrication jobs because IBM had data about birth defects. Remember, most fabrication line tools are completely sealed, and the air is some of the most filtered stuff on earth. So, is it the presence of something causing the problem or the absence of something causing the problem? Nobody knows, and the company is sure not going to take any risk to find out. So, you not only have to show higher rates but also show that it was due to the radiation and not something else. That's a very tall order.
        kuschku 11y ago
        And even today there are areas even in Germany where you can’t eat mushrooms or eat boars because they are still having residue radiation from chernobyl!
        11y ago
    - Nimitz14 11y ago
      I still stand by my statement that I think a lot of the public reaction to Fukushima was overblown (as a resident of Germany and a supporter of NPPs, I am biased ;) ). Have to admit I falsely remembered the radiation levels being lower by a factor of ~5 (additional radiation).

mikeyouse 11y ago

The Fukushima exclusion zone is still dozens of square miles where upwards of 100,000 people have had to abandon their homes and businesses.. That's a decent approximation to what happened in Chernobyl. Clearly there was much more radiation released in Ukraine but that doesn't mean the area around Fukushima is safe.. Here's a map; http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg

vonmoltke 11y ago
Nor does the existence of an exclusion zone mean it isn't.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what it means.. They have actual measurements of environmental radiation.. In anything orange or red, you're looking at a minimum of 20mSv/year which is about 1/2 of the annual dose limit for US nuclear workers.. In the deep red areas, you're looking at more than 50mSv/year which is approaching the level of increased cancer incidence. Nobody is going to live in those areas for a very long time.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Nobody is going to be allowed to live in those areas for a very long time. That doesn't mean it isn't safe to live there. It means an overcautious government won't let people live there. You even said yourself the highest levels outside the plant grounds are only approaching the levels of increased cancer incidence. So, what other than abundance of caution and paranoia about radiation is keeping people from returning?
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Are you honestly arguing that dozens of mSv of radiation annually are safe? That big bad government is preventing people from doing what they want? 50mSv is approaching the level of guaranteed higher incidence of cancer -- If you lived in the exclusion zone, you'd be receiving that every single year for the rest of your, and your childrens' lives. Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer.[1] Now imagine receiving multiples of that dosage every single year in perpetuity. The relative lack of cancer deaths in Ukraine wasn't due to 'safe' fallout, but due to the fact that they just closed entire cities and forced everyone within a thousand square miles to leave. [1] - http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.long http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.long
      - bsder 11y ago
        > Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (<7mSv), there were significantly higher levels of nearly every type of cancer. However, this holds for practically every worker near industrial equipment. Steelworker cancer rates used to be off the charts--the old saw at Bethlehem Steel was "nobody ever retires from the car shop"--you wound up dead before retirement. (car shop being a place where they made railroad cars). IBM used to remove (probably still does) pregnant women from their semiconductor fabrication jobs because IBM had data about birth defects. Remember, most fabrication line tools are completely sealed, and the air is some of the most filtered stuff on earth. So, is it the presence of something causing the problem or the absence of something causing the problem? Nobody knows, and the company is sure not going to take any risk to find out. So, you not only have to show higher rates but also show that it was due to the radiation and not something else. That's a very tall order.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        And even today there are areas even in Germany where you can’t eat mushrooms or eat boars because they are still having residue radiation from chernobyl!
      - 11y ago
  - Nimitz14 11y ago
    I still stand by my statement that I think a lot of the public reaction to Fukushima was overblown (as a resident of Germany and a supporter of NPPs, I am biased ;) ). Have to admit I falsely remembered the radiation levels being lower by a factor of ~5 (additional radiation).