3 ms·

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,

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.
  - cameldrv 9y ago
    Fukishima was (maybe) unusual though in that the nuclear accident was in the context of a much larger disaster. The original Japanese advice to stay put and turn off the HVAC was generally pretty good. Radiation from a nuclear reaction decays very rapidly once the reaction stops, and so the worst part of the exposure is going to be in the first days after the accident. Depending on the structure you're in, it's generally healthier to wait a few days before moving and exposing yourself to radiation in transit. For people in a hospital, that goes double, as long as the power is on, and it's possible to filter the air intake. Hospitals are generally big concrete buildings, so staying in one is pretty safe. In the case of Fukishima, the people being evacuated because of radiation were only a small portion of the casualties from the Tsunami, and so the emergency services were seriously stressed. I'd imagine that evacuating those people would have gone much more smoothly if it hadn't been for all of the other Tsunami damage.

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.
- cameldrv 9y ago
  Fukishima was (maybe) unusual though in that the nuclear accident was in the context of a much larger disaster. The original Japanese advice to stay put and turn off the HVAC was generally pretty good. Radiation from a nuclear reaction decays very rapidly once the reaction stops, and so the worst part of the exposure is going to be in the first days after the accident. Depending on the structure you're in, it's generally healthier to wait a few days before moving and exposing yourself to radiation in transit. For people in a hospital, that goes double, as long as the power is on, and it's possible to filter the air intake. Hospitals are generally big concrete buildings, so staying in one is pretty safe. In the case of Fukishima, the people being evacuated because of radiation were only a small portion of the casualties from the Tsunami, and so the emergency services were seriously stressed. I'd imagine that evacuating those people would have gone much more smoothly if it hadn't been for all of the other Tsunami damage.