9 ms·
We should stop running away from radiation
- Joakal 16y agoPeople are worried about cancer from electricity, phones, microwaves, terrorists, etc. Silent/Unseen killers are the scariest kind, almost as if it's a good bogeyman. Japanese can resolve this hysteria after seeing economic costs. However, the governments in lawsuit prone countries will go out of their way to make it very safe in almost everything. eg low speed limits, many speed bumps, background checks, etc. Otherwise the government would get sued for not doing enough, affecting the budget. Educational Video of Japanese Nuclear Boy for kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA
- sigstoat 16y agogovernments control the courts; they exempt themselves from liability for things all the time. for instance: try suing the cops in the US because they didn't do enough to protect you.
- tumult 16y agoWrong, this happens all the time. For example, municipalities pay out all the time to the Westboro Baptist Church when local police are unable to defend them from the people they are intentionally enraging. (This is how WBC makes their money.)
- younata 16y agoThat means that the WBC is the greatest troll of our time. They literally have nothing on 4chan.
- adrianN 16y agoMost constitutions in free countries establish some kind of system for checks and balances of power.
- RP_Joe 16y agoEverything is fine. Keep drinking the Kool aid.
- Herring 16y agoGood luck. The media (and people in general) are horrible when it comes to technical things and scary invisible things. Nuclear is both.
- evanrmurphy 16y agoWhat do you mean by horrible? I think it makes sense to be concerned about anything you're subjected to that you're not sure is safe.
- thematt 16y agoConcerned? Yes. Panicked? Probably not. I think the media's presentation of the situation is more the latter.
- evanrmurphy 16y agoAh, I see. I was thinking more about the general concept of safety than this specific situation. I see what you mean.
- Ratfish 16y agoPerhaps the authorities are to blame for this problem. They are far from open about the issues and the plant has a long history of record falsification and other shenanigans. Now we get to read about a faulty initial installation of the steelwork with a botch job repair.
- pyre 16y agoI think that the 'horrible' part is that the public at large is more than willing to act scared of it, but will make no attempt (and in some cases will actively resist attempts) to increase their understanding of the thing that they are so afraid of.
- callmevlad 16y agoHaving grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust any data that came from an authoritarian government, especially one run by a bunch of Russians, especially one that collapsed 20 years ago (likely destroying countless incriminating documents in the process), especially concerning a deeply embarrassing incident such as Chernobyl. The public may be overreacting to the nuclear threat posed by the Fukushima reactors, but this seems like a subtle attempt at rewriting history. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UN report 20 years from now proving that Saddam Hussein did indeed win re-election with 99% of the vote.)
- daeken 16y agoHave you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoThe biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Derbasti 16y agoHow about all those people dying from cancer years later all over Russia and Central Europe? Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.
- callmevlad 16y agoPrecisely. Saying that Chernobyl killed only 43 people is kind of like saying Hitler didn't really kill that many Jews.
- roel_v 16y agoMisclicked and really meant to downvote - your argument doesn't make any sense, because you're saying that 43 is not 'a bit' when compared to 6 million. 43 people really is only a small amount, and while it still is horrible for those involved, there are many things that kill many more people daily over which no fuss is made at all.
- callmevlad 16y agoMy point was that Hitler didn't directly kill that many people with his own hands, just like Chernobyl didn't _directly_ cause many deaths. But the consequences of that one accident and that one man went far beyond their _immediate_ impact that can be directly traced back. (In hindsight, I should have picked a different analogy ...)
- cperciva 16y agoRadiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Radiation is a carcinogen, yes. But it turns out that radiation is a really puny carcinogen. A radiation dosage which will probably kill you if delivered rapidly -- 4 Sieverts -- has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about 10% (and an even lower chance of causing lethal cancer).
- 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- adlep 16y agoI've seen a similar titled article about the Fukoshima plant on HN called: "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors."
- richardw 16y agoRadiation has the ability to make entire areas uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. Any mistakes in small countries like the UK could result in devastating effects on available land. Anything that dangerous should be handled exceptionally carefully.
- veidr 16y agoThe idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it. (The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within the context of a reasonably free society, so it may provide us with data that proves useful for future nuclear accidents.)
- fauigerzigerk 16y agoI wouldn't take the absolute numbers seriously either. But I think, after so many investigations and 20 years worth of post soviet health statistics, we can reasonably assume that the effects were not as bad as initially feared. Also, your argument could be turned on its head. If there hadn't been the kind of secrecy and attempts to cover up what had happened, way fewer people would have been affected. That said, I'm not a big fan of nuclear because I don't like making commitments for thousands of years. A lot can happen in that timeframe. Wars, corrupt regimes, a collapse of our entire industrial society, etc.
- Dove 16y agoThe idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...) referenced in the BBC article. There has been an unprecedented effort by the international community to assess the magnitude and characteristics of the health effects due to the radiation exposure resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences [I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized the available information at the time and confirmed that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment” and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project (ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and recommendations were presented at an International Conference held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a better understanding of the accident consequences and in assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement on the extent and character of the consequences. ... The objective of the present annex is to provide an authoritative and definitive review of the health effects observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections, taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee has evaluated the relevant new information that has become available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information considered included the behaviour and trends of the long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects, were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are outside the Committee’s remit. The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and on information submitted officially by Governments in response to its requests. However, the results of many of the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific peer review. The Committee decided that it would only make use of such information when it could judge that the results and the underlying work were scientifically and technically sound.
- switch 16y agoI'd recommend The Oil Drum - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7706#comments_top http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7706#comments_top There seem to be a small group of people who want to play the contrarian game and claim that people are overreacting to the potentially huge damage the contamination (as opposed to radiation) that Fukushima is going to result in. It's easy to be holed up safe in Oxford and claim radiation is not an issue. Why doesn't this gentleman volunteer to assist at the plants if he thinks radiation is no danger at all.
- stewbrew 16y agoWho is "we"? If the the author speaks for himself, I have no objection against him moving to Fukushima or buying a house close to another nuclear power plant. I'm sure there are people willing to sell and the price for real estate in those areas has most likely dropped considerably in the last few decades.
- sorbus 16y agoI wouldn't be so sure about your implication that nuclear power plants reduce property prices: "In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities: total property values, assessed valuations and median housing prices have often increased at rates above the national and state averages. In each local area, housing prices were several times higher than prior to the opening of the nuclear facilities, and there is evidence that in Barnwell, proximity to the nuclear facility may actually increase housing values.[1]" [1] http://www.misi-net.com/publications/IJNGEE-V1N1-06.pdf http://www.misi-net.com/publications/IJNGEE-V1N1-06.pdf
- stewbrew 16y agoFor apparently no clear reason, nuclear power plants are often built near the border. Usually people on the other side of the border usually don't profit in whatever way from the power plant. The situation may be different if you live on an island.
- nikster 16y agoThe author points out the solution for storing nuclear end products, its quite brilliant! 100m under a pro-nuclear persons house! Problem solved! Maybe those who think nuclear energy is very green might join the author? I am sure we can find a few 10,000, and then we have room for all that nuclear waste. The media overhyping things is nothing new and doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean nuclear power is safe, for example. Unfortunately, real journalism has all but disappeared from the world, to be replaced by what we'd refer to as trolling or link-whoring online.
- roel_v 16y agoI am sure there are many people who would not mind at all. Hold an auction for an amount per month would be paid to live there, so that people are compensated for the perceived risk.
- hrktb 16y agoWhat makes me uneasy about this kind of call is that the situation at Fukushima is ungoing, but we hear a lot of "the levels are ridiculous right now, what you're scarred of?". The people running away or worrying about the situation don't care so much about the levels now. They care about the levels if/when shit happens, and only use the radiation seen now to check how good things are handled. And for now it's not as if tepco's engineers, as goog as they are, are yet mastering the situation.
- nikster 16y agoI am going to make a completely unscientific argument now that I know the HN readership will look down upon, but I think it captures why we can't build nuclear plants. First, nuclear power started out as a cold war thing; they built nuclear plants because of one very interesting side-product required to build nuclear bombs. These days in those countries that already have nuclear weapons, that's a secondary concern - but this is where it came from. And for countries that don't yet have nuclear weapons, that's the reason they want to build them. Second, the accident in Chernobyl. Hold your statistics and studies. Just pause for a moment. Think about this accident. All children all over Europe were told to stay inside for a few days. And take Iodine. Any technology that is able to cause that is not fit to generate power. In fact the only man made processes that can cause such an event are nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Fail safe plants unfortunately don't exist - they're not fail safe, as evident in Fukushima. Does the chain reaction stop when everything fails? No? Then it's not fail-safe. Obviously. I am not a worrier - but when you're playing with forces that cannot be controlled with the technology we have, you have to do the smart thing and skip them for now. There's plenty of alternatives - I think the nuclear thing is a distraction from them, and kept alive by a very active lobby. I am happy to change my opinion if you come up with a new process that's actually fail-safe, that's actually guaranteed to not leak radiation, and that doesn't produce nuclear waste.
- code_duck 16y agoI mostly agree with you here, but I do think the technology has advanced since the Fukishima (or certainly Chernobyl) were built. Those plants are fairly ancient. Newer facilities have much safer designs. What we need to do with both nuclear and conventional power facilities is close everything from pre-1985 or so. The pollution coming from the dirty, grandfathered-in (to higher pollution) coal plants in the South, for example, are very likely to kill and sicken a lot more people than nuclear power.
- papaf 16y agoI mostly agree with you here, but I do think the technology has advanced since the Fukishima (or certainly Chernobyl) were built. Those plants are fairly ancient. Newer facilities have much safer designs. I don't like commenting on things I know only a little about, however, one thing is getting overlooked when people make this argument. The newer designs are usually PWRs which are stable by design as loss of water or power slows down the reaction. Unfortunately, they are expensive to build (billions of dollars) and have a limited life due to the challenges of containing pressure with metals exposed to radiation. This makes them barely economic over their lifetime at todays energy prices. The UK has allowed the planning and building of new PWRs. Unfortunately, the companies involved are reluctant to go ahead without some sort of subsidy or carbon tax. If any of the above is wrong, I'd like to be corrected. However, I feel this is a valid point that is rarely made.
- Ratfish 16y agoA 'spokesman' has just announced in the last few hours that there are high cesium levels in leaking water that is measuring 1Sv per hour. That going to be somewhere in the depths of the plant, but living about as far away from this ad is possible is a comfort to me.
- VladRussian 16y agothe moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment. From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-and-you/page6 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... : "Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."
- shadowsun7 16y agoThat moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford. From the HN comment guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than you do providing arguments.
- VladRussian 16y agoyour post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing".
- shadowsun7 16y agoA counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that had nothing to do to the original statement? Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous, and yet we regard any environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over. The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.
- BasDirks 16y agoUninformed idiots downplaying the issue just to stand out from the crowd, it's sickening.
- bjelkeman-again 16y agoOften the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid of fossil fuel (a straw man argument?), as if there are no other parts of nuclear power which should be questioned. This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473 Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for people and environment) and economical. A good discussion about the economic aspects can be found at: "Cost, not Japan crisis, should scrub nuclear power" http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisis-should-scrub-nuclear-power http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisi...
- mohawk 16y agoLets talk money. I think it is only reasonable to ask that avoidable civilian technology be insured against harm done by it. So: how much would this insurance cost? Cleanup, health care costs, disability payments, loss of property? Given just a slight increase in illness rate for the sheer number of people involved can give a hard to detect but significant cost. An insurer will have to set aside enough money for the expected amount of payout. What would Warren Buffett's premiums be? Some claims will be excluded by the insurer, and the rest of the population will probably be called to for economic assistance: how much will that be? What is the opportunity cost of having half a million people cleaning up the place instead of being productive? Feel free to peruse the [IAEA report about Chernobyl](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...). What is the total economic cost? Maybe "hundreds of billions of dollars"? See the report for estimates. So yes, we shouldn't run away from radiation. We should clean it up safely, then come to our senses and stop dispersing any more of it. This technology is a dead-end for normal energy production.
- Tichy 16y agoStopped reading at "more people have died from the Tsunami", which unfortunately was line one. if you want to make an argument about radiation, make it - Tsunamis have nothing to do with it, I don't think they are radioactive.
- gommm 16y agoThe blurb at the top is not always written by the same writer as the article... But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of casualties and damages between different accidents? It's a way to put things into perspective. People have in general a rather faulty sense of proportion and understanding of statistics.
- Tichy 16y agoA billion people die of old age all the time. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't care about other causes of death. The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong into an article about radiation.
- Natsu 16y agoThis isn't an article about radiation, it's an article about fear. Our sense of fear is not rational. If it were, people in the US would be more afraid of bananas (which count as "highly radioactive" if I apply the scales used by some newspapers evenhandedly) than Fukushima. Which shouldn't count as scary at all. I just ate one, in fact, in spite of knowing that it's choc-full of delicious, radioactive potassium. We fear things that are easy to imagine over common but hard to see risks. The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl. It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about that.
- tectonic 16y agoI highly recommend the Battle of Chernobyl documentary. It's available in parts on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3a4LXi_qc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3a4LXi_qc