5 ms·

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 no

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.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    Nuclear fuel is typically 3.5% to 5% U235 [1],[2] Fukushima had six reactors of 1100 MW each. A 1000 MW reactor uses approximately 27 tonnes of fresh fuel per year [1] equating to 945 kg of U235/reactor/year. Fukushima has six reactors and was commissioned in 1971 (forty years prior to the 2011 event). For comparison Little Boy used 64kg of U235.[4] The scale of radioactive materials are orders of magnitude different. [1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-made-into-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-o... [2]: Fukushima 3 where the failure occurred used MOX fuel containing Plutonium as well as Uranium. [3]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

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.
- brudgers 9y ago
  Nuclear fuel is typically 3.5% to 5% U235 [1],[2] Fukushima had six reactors of 1100 MW each. A 1000 MW reactor uses approximately 27 tonnes of fresh fuel per year [1] equating to 945 kg of U235/reactor/year. Fukushima has six reactors and was commissioned in 1971 (forty years prior to the 2011 event). For comparison Little Boy used 64kg of U235.[4] The scale of radioactive materials are orders of magnitude different. [1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-made-into-nuclear-fuel.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-o... [2]: Fukushima 3 where the failure occurred used MOX fuel containing Plutonium as well as Uranium. [3]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy