8 ms·

Homes should not be abandoned after a big nuclear accident

40 points by jwilk 9y ago

Piskvorrr 9y ago
Sure. Hard to think clearly and break from the herd reaction "BUT BUT BUT IT'S NUCULAR, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't use allcaps for emphasis: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
brudgers 9y ago
People have children. The "think about the children" argument I'm making here is that the description of the calculation does not mention the effects of radiation on the life expectancy of future generations and does not describe a rationale for ignoring these effects in its calculus. I'm not saying those effects can or cannot be ignored because I'm not an expert. But I'm skeptical because the analysis does not address human reproduction.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  Is there any evidence of reduced "life expectancy of future generations" for radiation exposure at the levels discussed? If not, then that may be why it was not addressed. While I don't know if there is or not, these studies of the results of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs[0] shows that the effects were limited to those currently pregnant, and without 1200 meters of ground zero of the blast. With no effect on the future children born to parents exposed to ionizing radiation of those levels. [0] - http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/ "The many studies that were conducted after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki determined that some of the risks that the public perceives to be associated with radiation exposure are non-existent, while others are in fact matters of concern. The cancer risk for children who were in-utero when their mothers were exposed is higher than it would be for others without this exposure, but children who were conceived after their parents were exposed to radiation had no increased cancer risk. Similarly for both birth defects and mental retardation, it was found that in-utero exposure possibly increased the rate of incidence of these conditions, but results from all studies are inconclusive, except for the case of pregnant mothers within 1200m of the hypocenter. All of the in-utero children born to these mothers experienced mental retardation. All three of these cases found that there is no increased risk of these conditions if the parents of the child were exposed to the ionizing radiation of the atomic bomb (child was not conceived at the time of the exposure)."
  - brudgers 9y ago
    The US atomic bombing of Japan used 64kg of Uranium (Little Boy and 6.2kg of Plutonium (Fat Man). Each nuclear reactor at Fukishima used tons of Uranium or Plutonium fuel. Each reactor generated tons of radioactive waste each year it was in operation. The amount of radioactive material involved in the 1945 events is several orders of magnitude smaller than at Fukishima. Perhaps there are robust cross examined theories indicating that the events are comparable. I am skeptical that the events are similar enough in important ways (i.e. ways other than occurring in Japan) that a single anecdote is sufficient basis to claim support for the proposed policy.
    - emiliobumachar 9y ago
      Not an expert, but I'd think the A-bombed cities provided numerous examples of all the range of possible radiation contamination in humans, from "negligible" to "fatal in hours" and possibly beyond. (I'm assuming a 1-dimensional scale here, which may be a mistake) Why would the total radiation of the event matter at all? All the radiation that an individual may receive beyond "fatal in hours" will not be relevant to their reproductive future. (Except in the contrived scenario in which a male receives enough radiation to kill him in hours, but still conceives a child in these hours)
    - ryacko 9y ago
      Yes, but as long as nuclear reactors operate properly, and with more modern safety features, providing power to a single household will produce a more manageable amount of nuclear waste compared to CO2 (kilograms to tonnes). No source of energy is without risk.
      - brudgers 9y ago
        The Fukushima reactors are not being operated properly. The policy proposed in the article is applicable to Fukushima because its scope is cases when the reactors are not operating properly.
    - loeg 9y ago
      Totally different kind of Uranium. You can't just compare kg and tonnage.
bacro 9y ago
In another news, people should duck and cover when there is lava coming in your way.
cameldrv 9y ago
I don’t think this analysis is helpful to nuclear. As a big nuclear supporter and someone in general agreement that there was an over evacuation at Fukushima, setting a nine month life expectancy standard is way too high. At that rate, very large numbers of people, maybe 10% are going to be getting cancer, not to mention birth defects. On average, about 2 people live in a housing unit, so you're trading off 18 months of life, substantial suffering from cancer, substantial stress and worry, and reproductive effects for a single housing unit. This unreasonableness masks an underlying reasonableness if the number were more like a few weeks or a month.
- notahacker 9y ago
  The critical bit is that people aren't being expected to shave a few months off their life dying peacefully in their sleep in their late eighties in return for retaining their own home, they're trading a significant proportional increase in some very unpleasant cancers curtailing their life much earlier. The article doesn't help fudging it by highlighting life expectancy differentials which are down to socioeconomic status and patterns of higher risk behaviour. Blackpool's lower life expectancy isn't random like background radiation; you can live in Blackpool without experiencing a significant threat to your health provided you avoid the alcohol consumption problems more prevalent amongst people that live there.
  - roenxi 9y ago
    There are two parts to the analysis though; this chain sounds like it is comparing death from radiation to completely normal life. The comparison in the article is death from radiation vs death from evacuation. Being compulsorily and unexpectedly evacuated from your home is catastrophic. My memory of Fukashima is that experience of living as an evacuee looked very woeful. If people lose 12 months to stress and whatnot from an evacuation, is losing 9 months to cancer really that much worse? I've lost a relative to cancer, the quality of his life was actually quite high until the last month. I've seen chronic depression do much more damage. I'm not advocating either, but if there is a choice to be made I don't think it is clear.
    - 9y ago
rootw0rm 9y ago
but then again, who cares what the authorities say? if you want to evacuate, do it. if you want to stay, do it. the use of force on innocents, for any reason, is immoral.
gumby 9y ago
It would be interesting to see this vs cost of relocation, which I believe has been enormously high (as has the emotional cost).º Different agencies price the cost of a single life ("statistical live value") differently. For instance the US department of transportation won't install a highway guard rail that would save one life per year if the installation costs more than $9.6M. FAA $5.8M. (and TSA clearly 0 while for DoD it's clearly enormous). º Even people who stay will suffer psychological problems, in part due to poor understanding of physics, and that isn't taken account of in the summary. Then again some people near phone towers suffer imaginary fears too. The original article is paywalled so sorry to the authors if these topics are discussed.
zzzeek 9y ago
"Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, said: "Mass relocation is expensive and disruptive. But it is in danger of becoming established as the prime policy choice after a big nuclear accident. It should not be. Remediation should be the watchword for the decision maker, not relocation."" We can only hope that someday Mr Thomas and his family will stay in their home a few miles away from a nuclear event and agree to be exposed to higher levels of radiation for decades. I'm sure he would not want to be adding to the pesky burdensome cost of nuclear accidents (which are of course preventable).
- dboreham 9y ago
  He does live close to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Powe...
mikeash 9y ago
A lot of the response focuses on the questionable morality of making this decision for the people who will be affected, and trading dollars for lives. Maybe we should shortcut that whole issue. Unlike most instances of pollution, we have a case where a single entity is clearly responsible for the contamination. That entity should be required to offer a buy-out of all property in the affected area at pre-accident market prices. They can then resell at whatever price they can obtain. If the damage caused by the contamination is small, the difference between the prices will be small, and their loss will be small. If their victims don’t think it’s worth moving at all, the loss will be zero since nobody will accept the offer. Something tells me that this idea will be rejected as being too expensive, which should be quite telling.
- rlpb 9y ago
  This will only work in a market with perfect information. When it comes to anything nuclear, I don't think it is controversial to state that this most definitely is not the case. The point of scientific study into this kind of thing is exactly what we need to be objective as a society, and this should be encouraged.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I don't think imperfect information would be an insurmountable obstacle for this. If people overestimate the damage caused by the contamination, they'll take the buyout. People who think the damage is less important will then be able to buy that property. The net effect will be a migration of people scared of contamination away from the contaminated areas, and of people who don't care about it toward the contaminated areas, which seems fine. In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I'm all for objective scientific study into the actual dangers of this stuff. But the cited study goes well beyond that and makes a normative claim that relocation is bad policy. By all means, let's educate everyone on the true dangers of this stuff. Then let's allow them to decide for themselves whether it's worth staying or going. If the argument is that the populace is too ignorant to correctly make that decision, then fix that. I'm very much in favor of nuclear power, but stuff like this doesn't help at all. It's true that people are ignorant of the true dangers, but this isn't going to convince them. "Don't evacuate, it won't kill THAT many of you" doesn't sound like someone making decisions in your own best interests.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
20 years later a child has some sort of disability and you are ready to kill yourself, even if the disability is not from radiation. Never mention cancers or even coughs--"it might be from radiation, I'm probably gonna die." And that's if he's right, a big if, especially when dealing with lives. Thanks, but no, Mr Scientist.
Spooky23 9y ago
So, after some authority fucks up and explodes a nuclear reactor complex, I'm expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine? Yeah, no. At Fukushima, the civil authorities didn't know what had even happened for awhile. Academic analysis of risk falls apart on the ground. What happened in places like the World Trade Center and Grenfell tower, and minor high rise disasters that I've experienced first hand have taught a clear lesson: know your surroundings, know all of the egress routes, proceed with caution, and get the hell out.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  >I'm expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine. Sure, you shouldn't be forced to stay. But by the same token the government shouldn't be able to force you to leave your perfectly safe home and possessions just for the sake of giving them some "caring" PR.
kazinator 9y ago
Does this take into account the social stigma of living in the affected zone? It could easily turn to family-registry (koseki tohon) based discrimination. For instance, it's not difficult to imagine someone's parents being opposed to marriage with someone living in that zone, reminiscent of the historic discrimination against the burakumin. Anyone doing agriculture there will face difficulties selling the produce elsewhere in the country. Anyone depending on tourism is going to struggle. People are going to mistrust governmental assurances that it's safe to be somewhere, suspecting various political motivations. How about the simple question of development: investment in the area is going to be very cool.
phkahler 9y ago
Since they seem to be happy to put a price on months of human lives that are not their own, how about instead they just factor the expected costs of accidents and relocations into the cost of nuclear power and tax the utility accordingly. Why is it always the little guy who has to get fucked when shit goes wrong?
- guscost 9y ago
  You're describing the Price-Anderson Act: http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insurance.htm http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insu...
  - phkahler 9y ago
    Was not aware of that! I was being partly sarcastic. The problem with any such system is that there will be people whose job is to deny claims. Of course there would also be some people trying to make unjustified claims too.
CodeWriter23 9y ago
I say have the courage of your convictions, study authors, and volunteer to relocate to the next nuclear accident site.
cmurf 9y ago
No matter what the public policy is, some percentage of people will leave. And that will shrink the local economies, and that will act as an incentive for even more people to leave. To make things right for those who stay, the government would have to subsidize the local economies, and even that would be a fraction of what things were like before the disaster. The reality is a nuclear accident causes massive asset destruction, it touches people who had absolutely no say in the economic transaction, and probably no meaningful political say either. Pretty much the only fair solution, is equal unfairness. Part of the "not in my backyard" is because the track record is, local residents are disproportionately impacted, and there is no where near enough support for them, while people far away are minimally impacted. This is trust damaging, and incentivizes people to vote against nuclear power: not in my backyard = I do not trust you to make me whole in the unlikely event there is an accident.
roenxi 9y ago
A lot of the responses drift away from the article to broader issues of nuclear power - cool. But it would be wise to focus on this point: After nuclear accidents, governments are compulsorily ejecting people from their homes. This isn't the end of the world, but it is clearly an extreme action. There should be some standard of evidence that they are held to before they do this. Maybe most of the people would leave anyway. The question needs to b asked. The bloke in the article is making a point that evacuations might be worse than radiation. This is a point that seemed likely to me after reading about Fukashima. It is possible we are facing a scenario where: * Governments are ejecting people from their homes * This is leading to worse outcomes than if they where allowed to live there peacefully or leave at their own speed If this is the case, we really need clearer standards to stop governments acting this way.

40 points by jwilk 9y ago

Piskvorrr 9y ago

Sure. Hard to think clearly and break from the herd reaction "BUT BUT BUT IT'S NUCULAR, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dang 9y ago
Please don't use allcaps for emphasis: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

brudgers 9y ago

People have children. The "think about the children" argument I'm making here is that the description of the calculation does not mention the effects of radiation on the life expectancy of future generations and does not describe a rationale for ignoring these effects in its calculus. I'm not saying those effects can or cannot be ignored because I'm not an expert. But I'm skeptical because the analysis does not address human reproduction.

dsp1234 9y ago
Is there any evidence of reduced "life expectancy of future generations" for radiation exposure at the levels discussed? If not, then that may be why it was not addressed. While I don't know if there is or not, these studies of the results of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs[0] shows that the effects were limited to those currently pregnant, and without 1200 meters of ground zero of the blast. With no effect on the future children born to parents exposed to ionizing radiation of those levels. [0] - http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/ "The many studies that were conducted after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki determined that some of the risks that the public perceives to be associated with radiation exposure are non-existent, while others are in fact matters of concern. The cancer risk for children who were in-utero when their mothers were exposed is higher than it would be for others without this exposure, but children who were conceived after their parents were exposed to radiation had no increased cancer risk. Similarly for both birth defects and mental retardation, it was found that in-utero exposure possibly increased the rate of incidence of these conditions, but results from all studies are inconclusive, except for the case of pregnant mothers within 1200m of the hypocenter. All of the in-utero children born to these mothers experienced mental retardation. All three of these cases found that there is no increased risk of these conditions if the parents of the child were exposed to the ionizing radiation of the atomic bomb (child was not conceived at the time of the exposure)."
- brudgers 9y ago
  The US atomic bombing of Japan used 64kg of Uranium (Little Boy and 6.2kg of Plutonium (Fat Man). Each nuclear reactor at Fukishima used tons of Uranium or Plutonium fuel. Each reactor generated tons of radioactive waste each year it was in operation. The amount of radioactive material involved in the 1945 events is several orders of magnitude smaller than at Fukishima. Perhaps there are robust cross examined theories indicating that the events are comparable. I am skeptical that the events are similar enough in important ways (i.e. ways other than occurring in Japan) that a single anecdote is sufficient basis to claim support for the proposed policy.
  - emiliobumachar 9y ago
    Not an expert, but I'd think the A-bombed cities provided numerous examples of all the range of possible radiation contamination in humans, from "negligible" to "fatal in hours" and possibly beyond. (I'm assuming a 1-dimensional scale here, which may be a mistake) Why would the total radiation of the event matter at all? All the radiation that an individual may receive beyond "fatal in hours" will not be relevant to their reproductive future. (Except in the contrived scenario in which a male receives enough radiation to kill him in hours, but still conceives a child in these hours)
  - ryacko 9y ago
    Yes, but as long as nuclear reactors operate properly, and with more modern safety features, providing power to a single household will produce a more manageable amount of nuclear waste compared to CO2 (kilograms to tonnes). No source of energy is without risk.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      The Fukushima reactors are not being operated properly. The policy proposed in the article is applicable to Fukushima because its scope is cases when the reactors are not operating properly.
  - loeg 9y ago
    Totally different kind of Uranium. You can't just compare kg and tonnage.

bacro 9y ago

In another news, people should duck and cover when there is lava coming in your way.

cameldrv 9y ago

I don’t think this analysis is helpful to nuclear. As a big nuclear supporter and someone in general agreement that there was an over evacuation at Fukushima, setting a nine month life expectancy standard is way too high. At that rate, very large numbers of people, maybe 10% are going to be getting cancer, not to mention birth defects. On average, about 2 people live in a housing unit, so you're trading off 18 months of life, substantial suffering from cancer, substantial stress and worry, and reproductive effects for a single housing unit. This unreasonableness masks an underlying reasonableness if the number were more like a few weeks or a month.

notahacker 9y ago
The critical bit is that people aren't being expected to shave a few months off their life dying peacefully in their sleep in their late eighties in return for retaining their own home, they're trading a significant proportional increase in some very unpleasant cancers curtailing their life much earlier. The article doesn't help fudging it by highlighting life expectancy differentials which are down to socioeconomic status and patterns of higher risk behaviour. Blackpool's lower life expectancy isn't random like background radiation; you can live in Blackpool without experiencing a significant threat to your health provided you avoid the alcohol consumption problems more prevalent amongst people that live there.
- roenxi 9y ago
  There are two parts to the analysis though; this chain sounds like it is comparing death from radiation to completely normal life. The comparison in the article is death from radiation vs death from evacuation. Being compulsorily and unexpectedly evacuated from your home is catastrophic. My memory of Fukashima is that experience of living as an evacuee looked very woeful. If people lose 12 months to stress and whatnot from an evacuation, is losing 9 months to cancer really that much worse? I've lost a relative to cancer, the quality of his life was actually quite high until the last month. I've seen chronic depression do much more damage. I'm not advocating either, but if there is a choice to be made I don't think it is clear.
  - 9y ago

rootw0rm 9y ago

but then again, who cares what the authorities say? if you want to evacuate, do it. if you want to stay, do it. the use of force on innocents, for any reason, is immoral.

gumby 9y ago

It would be interesting to see this vs cost of relocation, which I believe has been enormously high (as has the emotional cost).º Different agencies price the cost of a single life ("statistical live value") differently. For instance the US department of transportation won't install a highway guard rail that would save one life per year if the installation costs more than $9.6M. FAA $5.8M. (and TSA clearly 0 while for DoD it's clearly enormous). º Even people who stay will suffer psychological problems, in part due to poor understanding of physics, and that isn't taken account of in the summary. Then again some people near phone towers suffer imaginary fears too. The original article is paywalled so sorry to the authors if these topics are discussed.

zzzeek 9y ago

"Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, said: "Mass relocation is expensive and disruptive. But it is in danger of becoming established as the prime policy choice after a big nuclear accident. It should not be. Remediation should be the watchword for the decision maker, not relocation."" We can only hope that someday Mr Thomas and his family will stay in their home a few miles away from a nuclear event and agree to be exposed to higher levels of radiation for decades. I'm sure he would not want to be adding to the pesky burdensome cost of nuclear accidents (which are of course preventable).

dboreham 9y ago
He does live close to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Powe...

mikeash 9y ago

A lot of the response focuses on the questionable morality of making this decision for the people who will be affected, and trading dollars for lives. Maybe we should shortcut that whole issue. Unlike most instances of pollution, we have a case where a single entity is clearly responsible for the contamination. That entity should be required to offer a buy-out of all property in the affected area at pre-accident market prices. They can then resell at whatever price they can obtain. If the damage caused by the contamination is small, the difference between the prices will be small, and their loss will be small. If their victims don’t think it’s worth moving at all, the loss will be zero since nobody will accept the offer. Something tells me that this idea will be rejected as being too expensive, which should be quite telling.

rlpb 9y ago
This will only work in a market with perfect information. When it comes to anything nuclear, I don't think it is controversial to state that this most definitely is not the case. The point of scientific study into this kind of thing is exactly what we need to be objective as a society, and this should be encouraged.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I don't think imperfect information would be an insurmountable obstacle for this. If people overestimate the damage caused by the contamination, they'll take the buyout. People who think the damage is less important will then be able to buy that property. The net effect will be a migration of people scared of contamination away from the contaminated areas, and of people who don't care about it toward the contaminated areas, which seems fine. In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I'm all for objective scientific study into the actual dangers of this stuff. But the cited study goes well beyond that and makes a normative claim that relocation is bad policy. By all means, let's educate everyone on the true dangers of this stuff. Then let's allow them to decide for themselves whether it's worth staying or going. If the argument is that the populace is too ignorant to correctly make that decision, then fix that. I'm very much in favor of nuclear power, but stuff like this doesn't help at all. It's true that people are ignorant of the true dangers, but this isn't going to convince them. "Don't evacuate, it won't kill THAT many of you" doesn't sound like someone making decisions in your own best interests.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

20 years later a child has some sort of disability and you are ready to kill yourself, even if the disability is not from radiation. Never mention cancers or even coughs--"it might be from radiation, I'm probably gonna die." And that's if he's right, a big if, especially when dealing with lives. Thanks, but no, Mr Scientist.

Spooky23 9y ago

So, after some authority fucks up and explodes a nuclear reactor complex, I'm expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine? Yeah, no. At Fukushima, the civil authorities didn't know what had even happened for awhile. Academic analysis of risk falls apart on the ground. What happened in places like the World Trade Center and Grenfell tower, and minor high rise disasters that I've experienced first hand have taught a clear lesson: know your surroundings, know all of the egress routes, proceed with caution, and get the hell out.

OscarCunningham 9y ago
>I'm expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine. Sure, you shouldn't be forced to stay. But by the same token the government shouldn't be able to force you to leave your perfectly safe home and possessions just for the sake of giving them some "caring" PR.

kazinator 9y ago

Does this take into account the social stigma of living in the affected zone? It could easily turn to family-registry (koseki tohon) based discrimination. For instance, it's not difficult to imagine someone's parents being opposed to marriage with someone living in that zone, reminiscent of the historic discrimination against the burakumin. Anyone doing agriculture there will face difficulties selling the produce elsewhere in the country. Anyone depending on tourism is going to struggle. People are going to mistrust governmental assurances that it's safe to be somewhere, suspecting various political motivations. How about the simple question of development: investment in the area is going to be very cool.

phkahler 9y ago

Since they seem to be happy to put a price on months of human lives that are not their own, how about instead they just factor the expected costs of accidents and relocations into the cost of nuclear power and tax the utility accordingly. Why is it always the little guy who has to get fucked when shit goes wrong?

guscost 9y ago
You're describing the Price-Anderson Act: http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insurance.htm http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insu...
- phkahler 9y ago
  Was not aware of that! I was being partly sarcastic. The problem with any such system is that there will be people whose job is to deny claims. Of course there would also be some people trying to make unjustified claims too.

CodeWriter23 9y ago

I say have the courage of your convictions, study authors, and volunteer to relocate to the next nuclear accident site.

cmurf 9y ago

No matter what the public policy is, some percentage of people will leave. And that will shrink the local economies, and that will act as an incentive for even more people to leave. To make things right for those who stay, the government would have to subsidize the local economies, and even that would be a fraction of what things were like before the disaster. The reality is a nuclear accident causes massive asset destruction, it touches people who had absolutely no say in the economic transaction, and probably no meaningful political say either. Pretty much the only fair solution, is equal unfairness. Part of the "not in my backyard" is because the track record is, local residents are disproportionately impacted, and there is no where near enough support for them, while people far away are minimally impacted. This is trust damaging, and incentivizes people to vote against nuclear power: not in my backyard = I do not trust you to make me whole in the unlikely event there is an accident.

roenxi 9y ago

A lot of the responses drift away from the article to broader issues of nuclear power - cool. But it would be wise to focus on this point: After nuclear accidents, governments are compulsorily ejecting people from their homes. This isn't the end of the world, but it is clearly an extreme action. There should be some standard of evidence that they are held to before they do this. Maybe most of the people would leave anyway. The question needs to b asked. The bloke in the article is making a point that evacuations might be worse than radiation. This is a point that seemed likely to me after reading about Fukashima. It is possible we are facing a scenario where: * Governments are ejecting people from their homes * This is leading to worse outcomes than if they where allowed to live there peacefully or leave at their own speed If this is the case, we really need clearer standards to stop governments acting this way.